Or a 2003 VW Golf TDI. It also gets 50+ mpg highway, and better than 40 mpg city. It's also a bit bigger so it carries people much more comfortably, and more cargo, and it's actually a really safe car, unlike the deathtrap that is a Geo Metro. (Have you ever been in an Geo Metro at 70 or 80 mph? Dear god...)
true, but I doubt you can find a 2003 VW Golf TDI for less than $10K and the OP was looking for cheap. I suspect you can easily find a metro for $500.
I'd have to agree that the conversion route probably won't work out too well. You'll end up with a car that can go 30 MPH and has ~20 mile range.
Get yourself an old GeoMetro (or even older Chevy Sprint if any still survive). They get at least 50MPG on the hiway and 40 around town. It's too bad they don't make them anymore...
I'm waiting for the Toyota Aygo that's supposed to be available in the US next Fall (2007). As it will have a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine in a SmartCar-sized package I suspect that the milage will be in the 50's. Price will hopefully be much better than the SmartCar and it should be a lot more durable than a Metro as it's a Toyota.
This isn't reverse off-shoring, this is Westerners moving to India for Jobs that have been offshored from the places they come from.
In a real example of reverse off-shoring, I was contacted a few months ago by someone from an Indian consulting company that needed someone to do some development work for them who was "closer to the customer" (in this case closer to their customer in the US - I'm in the US). I basked in the irony for a while and then decided against it.
Seriously, 30 is not too old. Given the current economic trends (global capitalism) we're all going to need to reinvent ourselves every 10 years or so anyway - yes, that probably means going back to school in your 40's and again in your 50's... maybe even later.
Two - Trust your feelings, Luke. If you're already "making more" than you need, and you can't get motivated to make more, then don't. Go out and have some fun.
Indeed. If he still persists in wanting to work more hours then I'd like to job-swap with him. 25hours/week would be just right both in the amount of money and time.
I recall suggesting anonymous OSS development here something like 5 years ago - didn't get much of a response. I still think it will happen (I suspect it's already happening in some areas) given the pressure from IP companies wielding ridiculous software patents as well as government actions against various types of OSS. Even if you can show plenty of prior art in a patent suit, if you can't afford thousands of $$ for lawers you're still going to end up bankrupt. If your code in any way competes with a commercial enterprise it could make a lot of sense to develop anonymously.
Of course, the problem is that this could remove one of the big incentives for developing OSS: the lure of fame among your peers in the open source community. How're you going to put your latest software masterpiece on your resume when you've got to keep it anonymous?
I curse all those Baby Boomers who made being older than 30 a bad thing
Actually, no. If you consider that the 'baby boom' generation was born between 1945 and 1960, then the bb's are all well over 40 now. You can thank the baby boomers for phrases like: "40 is the new 30".... now you're even hearing: "50 is the new 30". They don't want to get old, so they keep changing the threshold.
Non-determinism means that there are multiple possible outcomes.
Again, no. Consider the following:
Deterministic: f(1) = 1 f(2) = 2 f(3) = 3
Non-deterministic: f(1) = 0 or 1 f(2) = 2 or 3 f(3) = 4 or 5
If one sees the effect of 3, in the deterministic case one knows the cause is 3, while in the non-deterministic case one knows the cause is 2. Just because a function isn't involved does not mean that there isn't a finite mapping.
However, your non-deterministic case is rather contrived and would probably not be satisfying for a philosophical non-determinist. I can make a simple change to your non-deterministic case in which it remains a finite mapping, and yet it becomes difficult to determine which input led to a certain outcome:
f(1) = 0 or 1 or 3 f(2) = 2 or 3 or 4 f(3) = 4 or 5 or 0
Now if I get an outcome of 3 there is no way of determining if that was caused by an input of 1 or an input of 2. This set of equation/rules better demonstrates bi-directional non-determinism (which is probably closer to what philosphers have in mind when they speak of non-determinism). Consider also more complicated cases where the rules change with time, for example. The committed philosophical non-determinist might also object to your restriction to finite mapping - you're limiting their choice. [full disclosure: when it comes to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, I plead agnnosticism - there seems to be evidence on both sides]
Randomness means unpredictable to a limited sense. The point of free will is that a result is random until the person makes a choice. It is the choice that removes randomness (quite like how the environment selects from random mutation in evolution). The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.
But as soon as you can determine why a person makes a particular choice, you leave the door open for some amount of determinism. Even the most commited philosophical non-determinists leave room for some cases of determinism, however, so you could have another 'rule' that says:
f(4) = 100
And the non-determinist can be OK with that in certain cases. However, they will point to those other cases and if you say that the agent chose 3 because the current state was 2 and the agent prefers 3's then you've opened the door for determinism.... "Why does the agent prefer 3's?" the determinist would ask, "Is it because of the agent's upbringing, etc.?"
The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.
Indeed. As soon as you start saying that you chose X because of Y then you imply a level of determinism which makes many libertarians nervous as they always want to keep their options open...
(and again, I'm speaking in philosophical, not mathematical or political terms)
t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.
Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I focus on philosophical libertarianism) meaning that they presuppose a non-deterministic universe. It's interesting to note that Free Will is a problem both in a deterministic and non-deterministic view. Most people are familiar with the problem of Free Will in a deterministic view, but completely unfamiliar with the problems of Free will within a non-deterministic framework. In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause. As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism: "He majored in CS because he was good at math and science and had an interest in computers... he had an interest in computers because his father was a computer scientist... his father was a computer scientist because..." -> the explanation starts to sound deterministic. However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.
Most philosophers who specialize in the isssue seem to be converging on a compatiblistic view (compatibilists contend that Free Will and determinism are compatible). At any rate, we do know that exposure to certain stimuli causes certain changes in the brain (often referred to as 'learning') - if we want to give up on that idea then let's just forget about the educational enterprise completely. If you contend that there are no effects then why do you bother to go to school? (or why do your parents send you) Why would you bother to try to 'learn' anything if there will be no effect on your brain (and by extension, your behavior)?
I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on/. (other than the fact that most/.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.
Housing costs are rising? Sheesh, I don't know where you live, man, but in Atlanta, it's as cheap to buy as it is to rent. I've had to decrease the rent on my rental property every year I've owned it now because the price of rent is going down because the cost of housing is so cheap and financing is so readily available.
On the West coast, anyway, the situation is quite different. Home prices have risen in the double-digit % range for the last several years. It's generally cheaper to rent at this point, however, that may just be a harbinger of falling home prices ahead.
The two big hurdles to all of us taking a pay cut are housing and fuel.
And medical care and insurance. My health insurance policy for myself and my wife just went up $100/month. And it's one of those high deductable (something like $3000/year) policies that I keep just so I won't go bankrupt if something were to go wrong with our health.
I think fuel is going to take care of itself. When it gets painful enough, we are going to switch to something else, and when that happens it's going to be a landslide in revolutionary technology - I think engergy will be much cheaper in the long run.
that's optimistic. I wish I could share your optimism. I take the opposite view: from here on out because of declining oil production (or soon to be declining oil production) we're in for some very bad economic times. Sure it'd be great if we had a revolutionary technology available to bail us out, but we've failed to plan to develop a revolutionary technology that will be available in time (we should've listened to Jimmy Carter back in the 70's when he was warning us - had we spent the last 30 years getting the alternatives ready, they might actually have been there in time).
Energy prices in general will be rising for quite some time...
Our cost of living is going to decline. Already household goods are incredibly cheap thanks to overseas labor. So are electronics. The only real obstacles to us all deciding to go back to 1968 wages are the prices of gasoline, cars, and housing. Eventually all of those will collapse, also. The automobile industry is on the brink of it right now. The Big Three auto makers are just about to buckle under their labor costs. As soon as China comes online with mass-produced automobiles it's going to be all over for them.
But our cost of living hasn't declined. Look at energy costs which have skyrocketed over the last few years. Housing costs have also risen to the point where the middle class is becoming priced out of the market. Sure, electronics is cheaper, but it's always been the case, even when American companies dominated electronics. The cost of gasoline is not going to decline because demand is up all over the world now. The cost of housing might decline if the housing bubble bursts, however, in some sense it is being propped up by foreign investment ("all your loans are belong to us!").
It's not about trading what one has in surplus. The theory is that one trades in the goods in which one has a comparative advantage. That is, you trade in the goods that cost you the least to produce.
What happens when nothing is cheaper to produce in the USA?
I was thinking the same thing. Molds would be common in soils and molds produce the compounds we use as antibiotics... so why wouldn't there be soil bacteria that are naturally resistant?
There must be lots of old soils samples around - why not take samples of soils that were taken prior to the antibiotic era (before the 40's or so) and see if they don't get the same result?
But this message at the top of the linked page makes me a little suspicious:
" Create your own Overall Scores
What fun! April Fool's Day all year long! Can you manipulate the multipliers and weights to make your favourite language the fastest programming language in the Shootout?"
Re:What is Perl 6?
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Probably a pretty good sign I should get off my ass and spend some time learning the language if I don't want to become obsolete to my employer.
I suspect your manager (if s/he is a typical manager) hasn't even heard of Perl 6.
Perl 6 is still vapor at this point. It's probably still a year or two away (and may be perpetually, unfortuneately). Yes, there are cool ideas there and you might want to be familiar with some of the highlevel concepts. But if you really want to study some new languages that will help your employment prospects you'd probably be better off learning Ruby at this point (that Rails stuff is really taking off). If you want to learn something on the leading edge you might even want to consider learning Io No books for Io as yet, but it seems to be be generating buzz among the early adopters (the sort of folks who were using Ruby five years ago).
About 3 years too late
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ok, Perl6 does indeed look cool. Lots of interesting things there. Sure, you can apparently write Perl6 code today and run it on PUGS (a Haskell implementation of Perl 6; that's gotta be speedy, eh?). But as is mentioned in the article, Perl6 was announced at OSCON 2000; that's 5.5 years ago. It's now become the posterchild for vaporware in the open source world, hence this article to keep the faithful hopeful (and to keep'em from sneaking off to Ruby, Python or even Io). Really, it just looks like the purpose of the article is to say "yes, we're still here working on Perl 6. We're working hard, we really are. Please, don't lose hope. This is hard work. It'll be here one day and it'll be great", while a lot of Perl folks who yearned for something better have already moved on to Ruby or Python.
I really hope that Perl 6 arrives one day. I'm pretty deep into using Ruby these days having left Perl 5 behind long ago (the part of the article about what's wrong with Perl 5 was really superfluous; maybe it was intended to convince the remainingn Perl folks who are happy with 5 to check out 6), but I'll give Perl 6 a look when it arrives. The grammar support alone looks pretty awesome; it'd be great to have a viable lex/yacc alternative. In the meantime I want to learn some languages that have a bit more immediate promise like Io. It seems that maybe the plans for Perl 6 were just too ambitious. Yes, it's great to start with a clean slate and try to revolutionize, but often it's evolution that wins out.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, that would be the first thing to suspect. I would hope they checked it and double checked it.
Why not shut off the main water to the house while you're gone?
Or a 2003 VW Golf TDI. It also gets 50+ mpg highway, and better than 40 mpg city. It's also a bit bigger so it carries people much more comfortably, and more cargo, and it's actually a really safe car, unlike the deathtrap that is a Geo Metro. (Have you ever been in an Geo Metro at 70 or 80 mph? Dear god...)
true, but I doubt you can find a 2003 VW Golf TDI for less than $10K and the OP was looking for cheap. I suspect you can easily find a metro for $500.
I'd have to agree that the conversion route probably won't work out too well. You'll end up with a car that can go 30 MPH and has ~20 mile range.
Get yourself an old GeoMetro (or even older Chevy Sprint if any still survive). They get at least 50MPG on the hiway and 40 around town. It's too bad they don't make them anymore...
I'm waiting for the Toyota Aygo that's supposed to be available in the US next Fall (2007). As it will have a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine in a SmartCar-sized package I suspect that the milage will be in the 50's. Price will hopefully be much better than the SmartCar and it should be a lot more durable than a Metro as it's a Toyota.
This isn't reverse off-shoring, this is Westerners moving to India for Jobs that have been offshored from the places they come from.
In a real example of reverse off-shoring, I was contacted a few months ago by someone from an Indian consulting company that needed someone to do some development work for them who was "closer to the customer" (in this case closer to their customer in the US - I'm in the US). I basked in the irony for a while and then decided against it.
If 40 is the new 30, then 30 is the new 20.
Seriously, 30 is not too old. Given the current economic trends (global capitalism) we're all going to need to reinvent ourselves every 10 years or so anyway - yes, that probably means going back to school in your 40's and again in your 50's... maybe even later.
Two - Trust your feelings, Luke. If you're already "making more" than you need, and you can't get motivated to make more, then don't. Go out and have some fun.
Indeed. If he still persists in wanting to work more hours then I'd like to job-swap with him. 25hours/week would be just right both in the amount of money and time.
I recall suggesting anonymous OSS development here something like 5 years ago - didn't get much of a response. I still think it will happen (I suspect it's already happening in some areas) given the pressure from IP companies wielding ridiculous software patents as well as government actions against various types of OSS. Even if you can show plenty of prior art in a patent suit, if you can't afford thousands of $$ for lawers you're still going to end up bankrupt. If your code in any way competes with a commercial enterprise it could make a lot of sense to develop anonymously.
Of course, the problem is that this could remove one of the big incentives for developing OSS: the lure of fame among your peers in the open source community. How're you going to put your latest software masterpiece on your resume when you've got to keep it anonymous?
It's like saying "Homeland Security, here I am! Track my every move!"
I'd like to do this...but I just finished my Masters degree and am no longer a student.
I curse all those Baby Boomers who made being older than 30 a bad thing
Actually, no. If you consider that the 'baby boom' generation was born between 1945 and 1960, then the bb's are all well over 40 now. You can thank the baby boomers for phrases like: "40 is the new 30".... now you're even hearing: "50 is the new 30". They don't want to get old, so they keep changing the threshold.
So does this mean that if you're over 30 you don't have a chance at creating anything innovative?
Non-determinism means that there are multiple possible outcomes.
Again, no. Consider the following:
Deterministic:
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(3) = 3
Non-deterministic:
f(1) = 0 or 1
f(2) = 2 or 3
f(3) = 4 or 5
If one sees the effect of 3, in the deterministic case one knows the cause is 3, while in the non-deterministic case one knows the cause is 2. Just because a function isn't involved does not mean that there isn't a finite mapping.
However, your non-deterministic case is rather contrived and would probably not be satisfying for a philosophical non-determinist. I can make a simple change to your non-deterministic case in which it remains a finite mapping, and yet it becomes difficult to determine which input led to a certain outcome:
f(1) = 0 or 1 or 3
f(2) = 2 or 3 or 4
f(3) = 4 or 5 or 0
Now if I get an outcome of 3 there is no way of determining if that was caused by an input of 1 or an input of 2. This set of equation/rules better demonstrates bi-directional non-determinism (which is probably closer to what philosphers have in mind when they speak of non-determinism). Consider also more complicated cases where the rules change with time, for example. The committed philosophical non-determinist might also object to your restriction to finite mapping - you're limiting their choice. [full disclosure: when it comes to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, I plead agnnosticism - there seems to be evidence on both sides]
Randomness means unpredictable to a limited sense. The point of free will is that a result is random until the person makes a choice. It is the choice that removes randomness (quite like how the environment selects from random mutation in evolution). The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.
But as soon as you can determine why a person makes a particular choice, you leave the door open for some amount of determinism. Even the most commited philosophical non-determinists leave room for some cases of determinism, however, so you could have another 'rule' that says:
f(4) = 100
And the non-determinist can be OK with that in certain cases. However, they will point to those other cases and if you say that the agent chose 3 because the current state was 2 and the agent prefers 3's then you've opened the door for determinism.... "Why does the agent prefer 3's?" the determinist would ask, "Is it because of the agent's upbringing, etc.?"
The real issue is explaining how choice itself is non-deterministic.
Indeed. As soon as you start saying that you chose X because of Y then you imply a level of determinism which makes many libertarians nervous as they always want to keep their options open...
(and again, I'm speaking in philosophical, not mathematical or political terms)
t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.
Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I focus on philosophical libertarianism) meaning that they presuppose a non-deterministic universe. It's interesting to note that Free Will is a problem both in a deterministic and non-deterministic view. Most people are familiar with the problem of Free Will in a deterministic view, but completely unfamiliar with the problems of Free will within a non-deterministic framework. In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause. As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism: "He majored in CS because he was good at math and science and had an interest in computers... he had an interest in computers because his father was a computer scientist... his father was a computer scientist because..." -> the explanation starts to sound deterministic. However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.
Most philosophers who specialize in the isssue seem to be converging on a compatiblistic view (compatibilists contend that Free Will and determinism are compatible). At any rate, we do know that exposure to certain stimuli causes certain changes in the brain (often referred to as 'learning') - if we want to give up on that idea then let's just forget about the educational enterprise completely. If you contend that there are no effects then why do you bother to go to school? (or why do your parents send you) Why would you bother to try to 'learn' anything if there will be no effect on your brain (and by extension, your behavior)?
I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.
Housing costs are rising? Sheesh, I don't know where you live, man, but in Atlanta, it's as cheap to buy as it is to rent. I've had to decrease the rent on my rental property every year I've owned it now because the price of rent is going down because the cost of housing is so cheap and financing is so readily available.
On the West coast, anyway, the situation is quite different. Home prices have risen in the double-digit % range for the last several years. It's generally cheaper to rent at this point, however, that may just be a harbinger of falling home prices ahead.
The two big hurdles to all of us taking a pay cut are housing and fuel.
And medical care and insurance. My health insurance policy for myself and my wife just went up $100/month. And it's one of those high deductable (something like $3000/year) policies that I keep just so I won't go bankrupt if something were to go wrong with our health.
I think fuel is going to take care of itself. When it gets painful enough, we are going to switch to something else, and when that happens it's going to be a landslide in revolutionary technology - I think engergy will be much cheaper in the long run.
that's optimistic. I wish I could share your optimism. I take the opposite view: from here on out because of declining oil production (or soon to be declining oil production) we're in for some very bad economic times. Sure it'd be great if we had a revolutionary technology available to bail us out, but we've failed to plan to develop a revolutionary technology that will be available in time (we should've listened to Jimmy Carter back in the 70's when he was warning us - had we spent the last 30 years getting the alternatives ready, they might actually have been there in time).
Energy prices in general will be rising for quite some time...
Our cost of living is going to decline. Already household goods are incredibly cheap thanks to overseas labor. So are electronics. The only real obstacles to us all deciding to go back to 1968 wages are the prices of gasoline, cars, and housing. Eventually all of those will collapse, also. The automobile industry is on the brink of it right now. The Big Three auto makers are just about to buckle under their labor costs. As soon as China comes online with mass-produced automobiles it's going to be all over for them.
But our cost of living hasn't declined. Look at energy costs which have skyrocketed over the last few years. Housing costs have also risen to the point where the middle class is becoming priced out of the market. Sure, electronics is cheaper, but it's always been the case, even when American companies dominated electronics. The cost of gasoline is not going to decline because demand is up all over the world now. The cost of housing might decline if the housing bubble bursts, however, in some sense it is being propped up by foreign investment ("all your loans are belong to us!").
It's not about trading what one has in surplus. The theory is that one trades in the goods in which one has a comparative advantage. That is, you trade in the goods that cost you the least to produce.
What happens when nothing is cheaper to produce in the USA?
pulls out gun, shoots self in foot (if he were to do this) ... more likely:
Steve Jobs is laughing uncontrollably now after reading Dvorak's column.
I was thinking the same thing. Molds would be common in soils and molds produce the compounds we use as antibiotics... so why wouldn't there be soil bacteria that are naturally resistant?
There must be lots of old soils samples around - why not take samples of soils that were taken prior to the antibiotic era (before the 40's or so) and see if they don't get the same result?
GHC Haskell is currently second, right after gcc.
But this message at the top of the linked page makes me a little suspicious:
" Create your own Overall Scores
What fun! April Fool's Day all year long! Can you manipulate the multipliers and weights to make your favourite language the fastest programming language in the Shootout?"
Probably a pretty good sign I should get off my ass and spend some time learning the language if I don't want to become obsolete to my employer.
I suspect your manager (if s/he is a typical manager) hasn't even heard of Perl 6.
Perl 6 is still vapor at this point. It's probably still a year or two away (and may be perpetually, unfortuneately). Yes, there are cool ideas there and you might want to be familiar with some of the highlevel concepts. But if you really want to study some new languages that will help your employment prospects you'd probably be better off learning Ruby at this point (that Rails stuff is really taking off). If you want to learn something on the leading edge you might even want to consider learning Io No books for Io as yet, but it seems to be be generating buzz among the early adopters (the sort of folks who were using Ruby five years ago).
Ok, Perl6 does indeed look cool. Lots of interesting things there. Sure, you can apparently write Perl6 code today and run it on PUGS (a Haskell implementation of Perl 6; that's gotta be speedy, eh?). But as is mentioned in the article, Perl6 was announced at OSCON 2000; that's 5.5 years ago. It's now become the posterchild for vaporware in the open source world, hence this article to keep the faithful hopeful (and to keep'em from sneaking off to Ruby, Python or even Io). Really, it just looks like the purpose of the article is to say "yes, we're still here working on Perl 6. We're working hard, we really are. Please, don't lose hope. This is hard work. It'll be here one day and it'll be great", while a lot of Perl folks who yearned for something better have already moved on to Ruby or Python.
I really hope that Perl 6 arrives one day. I'm pretty deep into using Ruby these days having left Perl 5 behind long ago (the part of the article about what's wrong with Perl 5 was really superfluous; maybe it was intended to convince the remainingn Perl folks who are happy with 5 to check out 6), but I'll give Perl 6 a look when it arrives. The grammar support alone looks pretty awesome; it'd be great to have a viable lex/yacc alternative. In the meantime I want to learn some languages that have a bit more immediate promise like Io. It seems that maybe the plans for Perl 6 were just too ambitious. Yes, it's great to start with a clean slate and try to revolutionize, but often it's evolution that wins out.
How about How to Program by Chris Pine. I hear it's excellent for people who have no programming experience.
Another good (and fun) choice is Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby . No other learning to program book has cartoon foxes.