For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [1] (thanks to Lincoln's setting it up in his treason war), that was how it was used. The final blow to the intent came in Wickard v. Filburn[2] in 1942 -- finally the Feds had not just trumped the States, they also took the power to actually RESTRICT commerce, not just make sure it was free and unencumbered by State laws.
As to the ridiculousness of the law, purchases are for the consumer to judge, not the law. If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact? Parents should watch what they buy their children -- if they don't have enough time to research something, don't buy it. If you're really concerned, there are numerous organizations of EVERY kind that will rate the product for you, like Underwriter's Laboratories decide what is safe to use and what isn't. Buy from retailers that check the product out, or buy what is rated by a company that YOU align with morally or in terms of safety. If I want to buy a game about being a gay pimp and slapping around the 15 year old prostitutes, and someone wants to make that game, we should be free to transact the trade. If you decide that a game about fishing is cruel to animals, don't buy the game. Why should the State restrict or promote either?
Actually, this does make sense -- but not from a consumer perspective but from a cronyism or paternalism perspective. When laws go Federal, they create a large legal barrier to entry. These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies -- small companies will be unable to afford whatever paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy exists after the law. This is akin to minimum wage laws that are written and supported by union cronies -- it keeps the powerful more powerful and harms the chances of the weak to actually compete and topple the powerful. So in reality, these laws are not pro-family but pro-crony. This is not capitalism, this is mercantilism, and as I mentioned in the first part, this is exactly what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted -- business regulation to prevent competition against their friends in business. He fought a war in order to get that power, and to do so he tricked people into believing the war was against slavery. Just like Clinton and Lieberman will say that this law is about protecting families.
The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation. Nice job, folks who voted this past election.
And how do you, as an individual, hold masses accountable? Most say through laws, but the laws just don't work. If a law is created, does it really change what the masses want to do? Not a chance, ever. Most people don't murder because they know it is wrong -- not because the law says "don't murder." Even with the law, murders occur more or less as often as before (and I would say moreso because of other laws that have caused people to lose their minds). Do laws against theft make you not steal? I doubt it, since most of us know we could steal and not get caught. We generally don't steal because we know it is wrong.
If you're afraid of others who are spamming or sending virii out into the ether, get software on your end and be a good example of the right way to protect your own resources, rather than yell "There should be a law!" when you know that laws just don't work.
What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?
Very little. My reason for subscribing is (in order of importance):
1. To support the site with my money, showing that it has value. 2. To generate a tiny level of respect for those who also subscribe or give a subscriber bonus to their own personal mod modifier. 3. Receive the chance to read articles before they're slashdotted.
I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.
Almost everything I get from slashdot is worth more than the time I spend writing on it. People respond to my posts, and I use those responses to better understand various topics and items -- politics, tech, lifestyle. This is my business, so the input I gather here helps me cultivate a better product for my customers, thereby raising my income. I would say that I probably receive more out of the responses here that I would doing any continuing education or external study. Whereas most educations are antiquated and take years to catch up, slashdot is NOW and tells us about the current "geekthink." I don't think one can spend their time better if they're consultants. You'd also be shocked at how many employers read slashdot regularly, and take steps to hire those who have interesting viewpoints.
A fool with his money is the fool that doesn't think about their return on every purchase -- whether a financial profit, emotional profit or even time-savings. For me, I receive the education and opinions of thousands. For $10 and an hour a day of time invested.
...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't. For me, I'd rather buy optional insurance to protect my transactions than worry about suing someone.
This is another case that reminds me of so many court cases and other reasons to ask the State for help:
"It wasn't my anger, your honor, it was the gun!" "It wasn't my inability to stop eating, your honor, it was the pill!" "It wasn't my irresponsibility to save for the future, your honor, it was commercial society!" "It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"
Sheesh. Yet another waste of time that will only make the lawyers wealthier and the State more powerful.
It would seem to me that he used the whip against sheep and cattle, not against the money changers (although the translation to English is a bit difficult). Look at the verb tense and the translation of "all" and you can see the difficulty in the translation. I'd say, though, based on Christ's other words and actions, it would seem that the translation WOULD say the whips were used to move the animals out.
As for why He told people to leave the temple, there IS a debate as to whether or not He was doing it to fulfill prophecy: he had to be arrested by the Romans, correct? The only way to do this was to do something that would get them to come and get him, in this case it may have been the temple act.
Nonetheless, the actions of Jesus revolve around two processes: what did He do as God, and what did He do as an example? He said blessed are the peacemakers (not the peacekeepers). He said the meek would inherit the Kingdom (not salvation, just the Kingdom, which came after his final return). His words to others said pacifism is the key to the Kingdom -- and therefore that is what we go on.
"If he has no sword, he should sell his cloak and buy one."
That is one that a lot of Christians are confused on, IMHO. Christ was telling them these things in order to fulfill prophecy -- the prophecy that he would reside among criminals. Also remember that he told his followers to steal a purse, too. Do you use scripture to promote theft? Read it for what it is -- fulfillent of prophecy, not the right to harm another.
It doesn't surprise me that the Christian Right is so wrong -- they seem to have read the Bible wrong based on the history of others reading the Bible wrong (Scofield, Moody, Dobson, etc).
You make the same mistake most Christians make -- the Old Testament was during the "Old Age" which Christ's tribulation resolved by ending those laws and rules. The whole point of the birth, Resurrection, and Return was to fulfill the Old Age. Christ did that, so all those verses (1 Samuel 25:13, Judges 5:8, Exodus 22:2-3) are useless EXCEPT to explain why the world needed Christ to do what He did.
The New Age/Convenant revolves around a few new thoughts: peace to all, love to all, sharing when asked for, stop judging, stop hating, stop commanding, start serving.
You don't have to give up your guns to be a pacifist. You can reject the initiation of force while reserving the right to defense.
Actually, I agreed with you on this until jdavidb reminded me that as an anarcho-capitalist that is also a Christian, violence towards another is absolutely not the answer. Jesus was very specific about living by the sword, turning the other cheek to our enemies, and loving all even those who don't love us. Self-defense really has no weight for me anymore.
I've been a big supporter of cameras not to just protect my rights, but to prove my innocence and to protect me. Based on talking with slashdot user jdavidb, I've given up my guns and have fully accepted the pacifist way (I feel that it is the most Christian attitude). While I would not attempt to defend myself anymore, not even from the State, I do believe it is OK to document what happened if something bad happened. Plus, the two cameras I do have on my property have secondary uses that are even more of a benefit: I can see who is at the door without getting up, and I can see if my driveway needs to be shoveled before I get home (a quick call to a neighbor's kid). This works great.
I have videotaped local law enforcement a few times in the past year as I've been working on a "free" viral documentary I've been hoping to put on YouTube to gain some support for both citizen surveillance of the State, as well as the ridiculousness of the State most of the time. I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor. You can't beat that. But the fourth time I was actually questioned for a full 20 minutes by the officer (or a radio'd in backup) as to what exactly I was doing.
I explained that the officer was on private property (usually a parking lot), as was I. Just as the officer didn't ask for prior approval, neither had I, but I would happily leave if the owner of the property told me to (or posted signs to the effect of telling me I can't be there). Since neither occurred, I felt I had ever reason to watch the police who watch us. The officer said I could be arrested for trespass and for violating the officer's privacy. I explained to the near-arresting officer that no one has privacy of transport in public as long as they're on public property or on someone else's private property. I do believe you have the "right" to privacy within your home (close the shades), but the minute you leave your property, you're on someone's land, and that person has the right to dictate what can be done on their property. That didn't jive with the officer, but he let me go (as if he ever really had me in custody). Unbelievable.
I feel we should be watching ourselves more closely. I had a rear-camera on my old truck to back it up easier, and I'd happily use it to record if I felt I needed to. I've even come out supporting the idea of the State IF and ONLY IF everyone who works for the State had to be under constant surveillance -- constant. Public IP cameras in the mayor's office and car. Public IP cameras in the DMV. Public IP cameras following the President. Let amateurs watch them, if they wish, and tag them and bookmark them and watch those watching us. If the public official has a lot of power, they should be watched even on their private time -- no bribery, no scandals, no cheating, no lying. Get them in their kitchen, get them in their meetings. The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right? They have the power to tax/steal from us, right? They have the power to imprison/enslave us, right? We should know what they're doing -- all the time.
Re:Because we have very different politics?
on
Understanding Burnout
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My family, however, are extremely conservative Christians who are in denial that I grew up and realized that their religion was just one of many and completely uncompelling. I have to sit calmly and let comments like "God is looking out for you!" float by after I comment that I just got a nice bonus for my hard work on a project at work. I'm cool with that. I'm the bigger person. I don't say "Wow that was lucky!" when they claim that their god was the root cause of some pleasant event in their lives. If I stood up for my beliefs the same way they shove theirs in my face knowing that I reject their claims of a god...there would be unhappiness.
I feel for you. I'm a Christian, and I would NEVER say anything like that because I believe (and I believe the Bible supports this thought) that God stopped "looking out" for everyone 2000 years ago. That was the reason for Christ's birth, death, conquering of death and return -- to remove God's demands for obedience from the picture, to replace it with what Christians call the Holy Spirit -- something that guides you to do right. God's not there killing people and promoting people, He's in His Kingdom ruling forever. That's it. You got a raise? I say be thankful that God created you with those hands and that mind and that drive. I say be thankful that the Spirit leads you in proper decisions, even if you're not a Christian and don't believe in the Spirit. A Christian that wonders why God doesn't answer prayers is one who isn't reading their Bible and is instead listening to some blowhard pastor who also isn't reading their Bible. A Christian who condemn loss of others as "Satan" or "God's Will" is in that same group. I am embarassed by these Christians because all I see is them wasting their lives, and ruining a good faith for others.
When Christians start living their lives based on what Jesus said and did, the feeling of hypocrisy and ridicule will go away -- maybe even opening the door for others to look at the faith from a perspective of how to better their own lives, and avoid judging others. God's rule over this fleshly world is over -- He's done what He needed to do, and He left us all with a very simple and basic path that really isn't all that difficult to understand. It's the egomaniacal pro-force Christians that have ruined it for the world, methinks.
I apologize for your family's distasteful comments and lack of allowance for you to live your life as you wish. They're probably "turn or burn" Christians, right?
PageRank doesn't seem to be based on keywords
on
The Math Behind PageRank
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have sites with a PR of 6, and I can tell you that they got that way because of inbound links from other sites. In fact, when other sites dropped those links, my PR dropped (to 5, and even to 4). Getting more inbound links brought the PR back.
Think about those links, too. How often do you use common words in an HREF? I don't think there's a lot of weeding out of common words since the link to a site is usually either its name, or a description containing some important keywords.
I love seeing these technoscientists think they understand PageRank, but just like TimeCube, they're way, way off.
No mention of the free market either. Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver.
Fellows, I usually try to find time to reference something other than those entertaining topics. It might seem evil to most, but I mean what I say!
Maybe it takes time for others to adapt to my philosophies, or rather for them to at least keep my ideas in mind when they examine their daily problems and their concerns.
I'm a very busy individual with peaks and valleys -- I go from 80 hour weeks for 3 months to 5 hour weeks for 3 months (on purpose). I see a lot of people in my fields burn-out regularly, and I wonder if it really has to do with workload, or if it has to do with a lot of other secondary causes. For me, the closest I came to burn-out was during a time of my life when my workload wasn't excessive (maybe 20 hours a week of billable labor and 20 hours a week of secondary support work). The workload was feeling stressful, but it was everything else in my life that was really having an effect that I didn't realize. I vented at the job, but it was carryover from other problems. I had a house that was too big ("housing prices always go up!" they said). I had big new cars that we replaced too often ("never buy anything on credit that depreciates"). I didn't take time to congregate with family and real friends -- my only friends were either employees, customers, or people in my field of work. I didn't take time to really have a vacation -- vacating from "reality." I wanted the newest toys, and I wanted them before others ("bragging rights.") My relationship with my significant other was cluttered with just that -- clutter. We had junk everywhere, and when we got our big 4 bedroom home, we had to fill it with more clutter or it felt empty. That clutter around me ended up cluttering my thought process peripherally, adding to the stress.
So what did I do? I downsized the clutter (physical, emotional and labor) and upsized the real personal time. I don't discuss business or politics or religion with my real friends and family -- instead we talk about reality, the now, the past. I "fired" a few of my worst customers who never seemed to pay on time but always called with this or that emergency. Sure, the billable rate was great, but the peripheral stress didn't balance out. I sold my home (and bought a few mobile homes throughout the regions I work and vacation in). I sold all 3 new cars and bought 2 used cars. We sold almost all our possessions except for our books and heirlooms (including all our technology, clothing, household goods, etc), and when we moved into our tiny 2 bedroom home, we bought new items that would last until our grandchildren would inherit them.
Now life is much easier. Work never stresses me, even when deadlines happen. I don't feel like I have to worry about traveling or spending time with my aging parents or younger siblings. I am able to really work on building real friendships of honesty and caring. My relationship with my significant other is so much better because we actually have time for one another, not for the junk and clutter we used to have. I actually work MORE now than I ever have, but I still have time for myself and for others.
Many of my old friends are burning out right now -- a few of them are millionaires who can't keep a grasp on living for today. I'd say a huge percentage of them are in major debt (50%+ of their gross income), some are living way beyond their means even though they're in the top 5% earning bracket. They hate their job, their spouses, their kids, their homes, their cars, and their lives -- because there is just too much. Where do they vent it? At work -- the place they spend 8-10 hours a day invested in. Their offices are clutter piles, their cars are messes, and their face and eyes show it.
If an outsider met them, they'd say that they work too much. They wouldn't blame the (leased) BMWs, the (mortgaged) McMansion, or the (on-credit) Armani sunglasses. They'd not even notice that they're living 1 person to a bedroom and practically 1 person to a bathroom, whereas historically we've seen the average around 2:1 on both, even 3:1 in some cases. They don't realize that the more you have, the more your mind is occupied on some level with all that stuff. On top of all that overhead, they're also paying probably 40-50% of their gross income to all the various government taxes, fees and costs. That's something most forget
Good question! 1 Peter was written for the Jews who accepted Christ after His Resurrection and Ascension. Christ had told His followers that He would return quickly/soon/in their lives. Was He a liar? I don't think so. In order for the Great Commission to be fulfilled (and end with end of the old age/covenant), the Gentiles also needed to see an outward conversion, not just an inward conversion, in preparation for the coming of the New Convenant with man -- the Kingdom, as some of us call it.
I see 1 Peter as a witness to the Jews to make sure they stick together as Christ would be returning quickly, while many of them were alive. Because those early Christians were living under the Great Commission, they DID have to do things that we today don't have to do. Remember, though, that I am a prophecy-fulfilled Christian, not one of those "Left Behind" kind.
I'd pay a lot of attention and take action (like, um, move away?). The thing is, any organization that has the potential to have a significant impact on your life (let's say, arrest you) shouldn't be straight up ignored.
That's completely true, but as someone who has a faith belief, I will not offer resistance if they want to come and take me away. I believe in natural rights and I believe that I can not force anyone to do anything against their will. By default, the law is force. I can not take advantage of the law if it forces a person to do something they don't want to do.
I find anarcho-capitalism intriguing. What you want is for capitalism to extend into the public utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run on a capitalist model.
Yes, true, but not on the U.S. version of Capitalism. The U.S. is not capitalistic, and hasn't been for probably 150 years (actually, just before Lincoln was President). We are more mercantilistic (which is what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted!) -- government is there to give paternalistic treatment to the powerful and connected. So when I say "capitalism" I mean pure capitalism. My definition of pure capitalism is the opportunity for two people to barter or exchange where both parties will mutually profit. This is true of all bartering except when the State enters the picture (taxes, etc). You won't buy an pear for $50 because you won't gain anything, but you will buy one for $0.50, and both you and the supplier profit. That's the simplicity of the free market. What people need, others will provide for. THAT is capitalism.
Or, money shouldn't be involved at all, like libraries.
Funny, because I am donating money for a private library to be put together in my area. Libraries are terribly inefficient today -- a huge burden on the taxpayers who DON'T use them (the vast majority). Libraries were always funded by the wealthy for the betterment of society -- today that is not true, because the voters can steal from the non-voters for whatever they want. The library is a huge waste of YOUR money. I am doing my year-end taxes right now, and over 50% of my income has gone to government this year. Over 50%. Why? For libraries?
Religion is one of the most hierarchical organizations on earth. It's a step beyond autocracy. Did you ever get to choose your leader? What makes it right for him to rule? Why does he have that power? Do you know that he's perfect, or just take his word for it?
I have been ex-communicated by many "churches" in my area. I don't use the word church, almost never -- I use the word "congregation." I truly believe that most Christians have no clue about the Bible, because they sure don't live it. They're accepting the word of some egomaniacal "pastor" and then they teach their kids the mumbo jumbo that they learned. The Bible is pretty cool, actually -- almost all of it is irrelevant for Christians today. About 95% of it is what I call "the example of human trash;" the 5% that is pertinent is REALLY amazing and goes completely counter to how most Christians live today. Yet I can not judge their actions and their sins, I can only love them. I feel sorry that many Christians are wasting their mortal lives on mumbo jumbo, but that's their choice, their free will. Yes, they vote and steal from me. Yes, they give me a bad name. That's fine, I still love them. I also love the non-faithful, too:) Maybe moreso, hah. If you're interested in my take on Christianity, drop me an e-mail -- even if you're an atheist.
I don't know whether you'd appreciate this, but I'd think you would make an excellent senator or representative. I do appreciate it, and I appreciate your candor. I actually hear it often (I do quite a bit of public speaking, actually), and I've responded to it in an article titled I should be President? It's an old article, but still solid in terms of my bel
Here's a tough one -- I'm an anarcho-capitalist Christian, so I actually don't pay attention to whatever laws you guys voted for. They're irrelevant for how I live my life. That being said, MANY congregations that I serve are VERY cautious about violating copyright. There's a huge debate that comes up every 6 months or so over at www.churchmedia.net (worst community ever, but its the only one, so that's where we go) about what Fair Use is and isn't.
I use it all, and if anything, my use of "unlicensed products" probably sells more of it -- people see clips, gain interest (or regain interest), and go out and buy the DVD or CD. Ridiculous laws, but some people want to follow them.
I run a church media ministry out of my home, and we use DVD Shrink. The software is freeware, and it is excellent. It lets you select what scenes/chapters/frames you want to copy, and creates a new DVD-compatible clip on your hard drive. What is nice about VOB files (the DVD files) is that they are MPEG-compliant, so you can just rename the VOB extension to MPG and off you go.
If you need to shrink the file to lower res than DVD, I recommend TMPGenc, which works very well. You can also import your VOB/MPG into Adobe Premiere Pro and export it to a new format, while editing clips together with fades, titles, etc.
What is your budget? Do you prefer F/OSS? Windows? Mac? Linux?
Really? And how do you know that mugging is bad? Because people have been mugged, and the lesson learned is "that is bad!" Some kids touch hot stoves and burn themselves, and the outcome now is parents who are more careful. Some kids stuck keys in outlets, and the outcome is very cheap outlet protectors (provided by the free market, not by some ridiculous one-size-fits-all government law).
If hacking is profitable, anti-hacking will be done. The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.
Of course hacking is profitable -- the laws of supply and demand cover this as any service or product. The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot. For acts considered criminal, the value to the service provider will still meet what the market dictates. In this case, the chance of getting caught is low, so hacking might not be as profitable as selling pot, but it also depends on the demand. If hackers are making money, that means there is a demand for their service. If only a few hackers are willing to take the risk, a high demand and low supply of service providers means a high cost/profit. That's the nature of the free market.
Yet I don't think this profit will necessarily last forever -- even if laws change to make it easier to catch a hacker and even if the penalties are raised. The Internet is global, not local. With more third party countries gaining Internet access and more people willing to invest the time to learn to hack, I believe hackers will find their jobs outsourced as quickly as call centers and web developers have. So what?
The State will write laws to defend against hacking, but the reality is that the free market will provide better defense. There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk. Hackers make a profit only means that anti-hackers have a new business opportunity -- and if you're good with security, you should make a windfall NOW before the law interferes with YOUR ability to secure your clients. Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."
Take advantage of this business opportunity today -- on either side of the "battle."
You put that in quotes, but for many people, living in used mobile homes (how old are they if they're fully deprecated?) is substandard living.
Oldest is 1987 with an energy efficiency rating 100% better than a typical newer tract home. Newest is around 1993 or 1992 (can't recall). Some I paid ZERO for (walk-aways -- people had to move and I offered to get them out of the lot lease).
The key here is the definition of living. If you like being around your home and plan on retiring in it (not ON its future value), buy a "house." I personally like the freedom of changing if I need to, or if business/life warrants it. I also do not appreciate housing prices going up over time -- it is a game of inflation, not growing value.
Being "future-focused" shouldn't have to mean stocking up on gold, food and ammo and waiting for civilization to collapse.
Why do people sometimes think that is how I live? For me, future focused means trying to manage my time today so I have more time tomorrow to do what I want. I look at an efficient time preference as the #1 sign of wealth. I know that in my 20s, I could party it up. In my 30s, the body starts to slow down. Hit 40s, and death starts knocking (and even occurs for some). The 50s is when the body really starts giving out, and when you lose the efficiency in the market (I do believe that 30 year olds are often worth more to a market than 50 year olds because of adaptability and recent experience over lifetime of stuck-in-the-old-way experience). In the 60s, you're really feeling the heat (my mom hits 60 this year, my dad is 66, and they both are much slower than a decade ago). I have to balance my best work years with my best non-work years -- that means looking to the future as a focus for what I CAN do and what I'd WANT to do.
I'm sorry, but paying off a home for 37 years is not ownership, it is slavery to a smarter party. On a typical US$300,000 house with $50,000 down (most don't have that), you pay about US$19,000 in mortgage (6.5% fixed). US$16,200 of that is interest. Over the first ten years, you'll pay almost US$150,000 in interest alone. How is that ownership? Considering a 29% mortgage-to-gross ratio (which isn't standard, today), you'd have to pay US$65,500 to afford that loan, so in the first 10 years, over 2 years of your life is JUST in interest -- 20% of those work years. No thanks. That, to me, sounds fairly substandard in terms of freedom from stress and frustration.
It is no surprise to me that a lot of marriage problems start off with financial matters. It is no surprise to me that foreclosures are up 100-200% YOY in many regions. It is no surprise to me that many people lie about their equity-to-debt-to-income ratios. I'm not embarrassed about where I live, in fact I am proud that I can actually LIVE in terms of balancing work, recreation, family and faith. I'm pretty sure I give an equal amount to each, which to me gives me the stress-free life. The fact that there is savings on top of that, and some ability to wager some market risks (business ideas, etc), I think it is a super-standard way to live.
I'm not saying EVERYONE should live this way, I'm not saying it is the best way to live, but from the horror stories I hear from 90% of my friends and (younger) family, I can't understand why everyone wants to live the way they're living.
You pay too much in taxes, regulations, tariffs and other regulatory costs in the UK, so more people are poor. That's a fact that we don't see charts for.
I live in the US in what most would consider "substandard" to what the average Joe has. I sold my huge house and bought a few used (and fully depreciated) mobile homes (paid off). I sold my huge new cars and bought nice solid used ones (paid off). I downsized my utilities (more efficient windows and roof means lower energy bills, intelligent lighting means lower electrical bills, dumped cable for ondemand online). I raised my health insurance deductible for 5 years while socking away more than the deductible in gold and silver, so my health insurance is dirt cheap. I cook at home more than I eat out (unless I get comped for providing referrals for local restaurants). I probably live on 16% the cost of most people in my income level -- 84% of that savings goes to long term savings and short term vacations. My savings are semi-liquid (hard metal currency and some property) which keeps me from spending it stupidly.
I'm not thrifty, I'm just future-focused. There will come a day when I'll walk away from all that work and continue to live "substandard" but travel even more -- why bother with a 2500 square foot house when my 1000 square foot mobile homes throughout the country offer me huge savings over hotels, AND I can travel elsewhere with the money I saved not throwing 37 years of interest to the mortgage banks (30 year mortgage + 7 year average refinance to pay off).
I think what usually prevents people from doing that is that most people do not receive 50 vacation days per year, which is what would approximately be required to take four 2-3 week vacations every year. Most people don't even get half that number of days, especially not until they either a) reach the upper echelons, or b) work at the same company for years/decades.
I'm sure you're right, which is why I said even just 2-3 weeks a year is a start, but most don't even take that (or use it in double-day short trips or "sick days"). That's one of the dilemmas of being a W2'd employee -- along with less write-offs, lower gross income, and a big bag of other shortfalls.
I prefer peaks and valleys in terms of work investment -- I'd rather do 6-60 hour weeks in a row and then cut back to 3-0 hour weeks (averaging to 9 40-hour weeks). The uptime of work means driving hard to beat deadlines, beat budget caps and end up being more efficient than whatever trade held me back. The downtime of the time-off means recovery in a few days, and the rest is like paradise no matter what I do. More time for family, more time for friends (who rarely have time), more time to write, more time to travel.
I understand that the typical W2 employee CAN'T do that, but why are most geeks still salaried??? I know this would turn into an OT thread, so someone should post an article to the editors for Ask Slashdot: Why aren't more geeks 1099'd? If another person says stability, I'll go nuts, because there are more contract jobs out there than salaried positions open. Especially if you are willing to travel (and get a great per-diem). Even more so if you're willing to travel internationally with a per-diem total that can exceed the work contract.
When I think of vacations, I think of vacating -- leaving something empty of... me! A weekend trip is not a vacation; it takes me about 24 hours after landing to fully appreciate that I've left. It takes me 24 hours before the take-off flight to mentally prepare myself for returning. That means 48 hours is the prep time each way, at least in my experience. I need at least 10 days to truly appreciate a vacation -- and that means no cell phone, e-mail or web.
I take trips all the time, at least 2-3 trips a month. I always take my cell and PDA with me, but I usually leave the web behind. If I am taking a short trip, it is non-web business related, and I write off as much as legally possible. But if I start jumping online, that business trip becomes inefficient for me, and I don't get my work done, so even with a write-off it is still a financial loss.
I can not imagine NOT taking 2-3 weeks off each quarter for a real vacation. What prevents people from doing that? I hear it from friends who are overworked (usually because they are over-indebted): they can't leave because they'll miss something important at work. I never heard of this before because I always make sure that my future replacement in my position is trained for handling any emergencies when I am gone. I guess too many people are too protective of their position -- this usually means they see the future as a dead end or they see their abilities as plateaud. In this case, not taking a vacation really means they are just trying to hold ground.
I can't think of a single project that my expertise is needed on for the entire project, or even 50% of it. If you are good at handling emergencies, people will pay you just to be around holding their hand during non-emergencies. This is the opposite of expendable, and it also opens up your schedule for vacations -- real ones.
If your life doesn't allow for it, what are you doing even bothering to live? What is so important that a vacation would create a risk/reward ratio that is out of whack? For many, I think you have to look at lifestyle -- is your house so big that being out of work for one year will hurt you? Sell it. Are your monthly expenses so big that you can't pay them for 24 months with zero income? Sell things and learn to cut expenses. Is your budget so tight that when you do have time to take off, you have to pay for the trip on credit cards and it'll take 3-10 years of future income to cover your trip? start prioritizing what is important.
If I don't get 2-3 weeks of downtime each quarter, I am not efficient. Also, being away from work lets my customers know how much they need me when there ARE problems. The risk/reward ratio is very small -- little risk, and a huge reward from both sides: I'm personally rewarded by downtime, and I'm also rewarded if an emergency happens that I would be best at solving.
Life is way too short to focus only on working and buying a bigger house and a bigger car and a bigger TV or video game system. Even just 3 weeks a year of downtime is barely over 6% of the year -- a very meager idea of vacationing. Then again, I think many people give 10% to God, 30% to their employer, 4% to family, 6% to themselves and 50% to the State. I guess there's the prime problem.
Slashdot Mirror
For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [1] (thanks to Lincoln's setting it up in his treason war), that was how it was used. The final blow to the intent came in Wickard v. Filburn[2] in 1942 -- finally the Feds had not just trumped the States, they also took the power to actually RESTRICT commerce, not just make sure it was free and unencumbered by State laws.
As to the ridiculousness of the law, purchases are for the consumer to judge, not the law. If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact? Parents should watch what they buy their children -- if they don't have enough time to research something, don't buy it. If you're really concerned, there are numerous organizations of EVERY kind that will rate the product for you, like Underwriter's Laboratories decide what is safe to use and what isn't. Buy from retailers that check the product out, or buy what is rated by a company that YOU align with morally or in terms of safety. If I want to buy a game about being a gay pimp and slapping around the 15 year old prostitutes, and someone wants to make that game, we should be free to transact the trade. If you decide that a game about fishing is cruel to animals, don't buy the game. Why should the State restrict or promote either?
Actually, this does make sense -- but not from a consumer perspective but from a cronyism or paternalism perspective. When laws go Federal, they create a large legal barrier to entry. These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies -- small companies will be unable to afford whatever paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy exists after the law. This is akin to minimum wage laws that are written and supported by union cronies -- it keeps the powerful more powerful and harms the chances of the weak to actually compete and topple the powerful. So in reality, these laws are not pro-family but pro-crony. This is not capitalism, this is mercantilism, and as I mentioned in the first part, this is exactly what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted -- business regulation to prevent competition against their friends in business. He fought a war in order to get that power, and to do so he tricked people into believing the war was against slavery. Just like Clinton and Lieberman will say that this law is about protecting families.
The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation. Nice job, folks who voted this past election.
And how do you, as an individual, hold masses accountable? Most say through laws, but the laws just don't work. If a law is created, does it really change what the masses want to do? Not a chance, ever. Most people don't murder because they know it is wrong -- not because the law says "don't murder." Even with the law, murders occur more or less as often as before (and I would say moreso because of other laws that have caused people to lose their minds). Do laws against theft make you not steal? I doubt it, since most of us know we could steal and not get caught. We generally don't steal because we know it is wrong.
If you're afraid of others who are spamming or sending virii out into the ether, get software on your end and be a good example of the right way to protect your own resources, rather than yell "There should be a law!" when you know that laws just don't work.
What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?
Very little. My reason for subscribing is (in order of importance):
1. To support the site with my money, showing that it has value.
2. To generate a tiny level of respect for those who also subscribe or give a subscriber bonus to their own personal mod modifier.
3. Receive the chance to read articles before they're slashdotted.
I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.
Almost everything I get from slashdot is worth more than the time I spend writing on it. People respond to my posts, and I use those responses to better understand various topics and items -- politics, tech, lifestyle. This is my business, so the input I gather here helps me cultivate a better product for my customers, thereby raising my income. I would say that I probably receive more out of the responses here that I would doing any continuing education or external study. Whereas most educations are antiquated and take years to catch up, slashdot is NOW and tells us about the current "geekthink." I don't think one can spend their time better if they're consultants. You'd also be shocked at how many employers read slashdot regularly, and take steps to hire those who have interesting viewpoints.
A fool with his money is the fool that doesn't think about their return on every purchase -- whether a financial profit, emotional profit or even time-savings. For me, I receive the education and opinions of thousands. For $10 and an hour a day of time invested.
...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't. For me, I'd rather buy optional insurance to protect my transactions than worry about suing someone.
This is another case that reminds me of so many court cases and other reasons to ask the State for help:
"It wasn't my anger, your honor, it was the gun!"
"It wasn't my inability to stop eating, your honor, it was the pill!"
"It wasn't my irresponsibility to save for the future, your honor, it was commercial society!"
"It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"
Sheesh. Yet another waste of time that will only make the lawyers wealthier and the State more powerful.
It would seem to me that he used the whip against sheep and cattle, not against the money changers (although the translation to English is a bit difficult). Look at the verb tense and the translation of "all" and you can see the difficulty in the translation. I'd say, though, based on Christ's other words and actions, it would seem that the translation WOULD say the whips were used to move the animals out.
As for why He told people to leave the temple, there IS a debate as to whether or not He was doing it to fulfill prophecy: he had to be arrested by the Romans, correct? The only way to do this was to do something that would get them to come and get him, in this case it may have been the temple act.
Nonetheless, the actions of Jesus revolve around two processes: what did He do as God, and what did He do as an example? He said blessed are the peacemakers (not the peacekeepers). He said the meek would inherit the Kingdom (not salvation, just the Kingdom, which came after his final return). His words to others said pacifism is the key to the Kingdom -- and therefore that is what we go on.
"If he has no sword, he should sell his cloak and buy one."
That is one that a lot of Christians are confused on, IMHO. Christ was telling them these things in order to fulfill prophecy -- the prophecy that he would reside among criminals. Also remember that he told his followers to steal a purse, too. Do you use scripture to promote theft? Read it for what it is -- fulfillent of prophecy, not the right to harm another.
It doesn't surprise me that the Christian Right is so wrong -- they seem to have read the Bible wrong based on the history of others reading the Bible wrong (Scofield, Moody, Dobson, etc).
You make the same mistake most Christians make -- the Old Testament was during the "Old Age" which Christ's tribulation resolved by ending those laws and rules. The whole point of the birth, Resurrection, and Return was to fulfill the Old Age. Christ did that, so all those verses (1 Samuel 25:13, Judges 5:8, Exodus 22:2-3) are useless EXCEPT to explain why the world needed Christ to do what He did.
The New Age/Convenant revolves around a few new thoughts: peace to all, love to all, sharing when asked for, stop judging, stop hating, stop commanding, start serving.
Would you report someone who committed a crime against you, knowing that it would result in their imprisonment?
No, definitely not. I am insured against as many crimes as possible, so why would it matter if the "evil doer" was caught or not?
You don't have to give up your guns to be a pacifist. You can reject the initiation of force while reserving the right to defense.
Actually, I agreed with you on this until jdavidb reminded me that as an anarcho-capitalist that is also a Christian, violence towards another is absolutely not the answer. Jesus was very specific about living by the sword, turning the other cheek to our enemies, and loving all even those who don't love us. Self-defense really has no weight for me anymore.
I've been a big supporter of cameras not to just protect my rights, but to prove my innocence and to protect me. Based on talking with slashdot user jdavidb, I've given up my guns and have fully accepted the pacifist way (I feel that it is the most Christian attitude). While I would not attempt to defend myself anymore, not even from the State, I do believe it is OK to document what happened if something bad happened. Plus, the two cameras I do have on my property have secondary uses that are even more of a benefit: I can see who is at the door without getting up, and I can see if my driveway needs to be shoveled before I get home (a quick call to a neighbor's kid). This works great.
I have videotaped local law enforcement a few times in the past year as I've been working on a "free" viral documentary I've been hoping to put on YouTube to gain some support for both citizen surveillance of the State, as well as the ridiculousness of the State most of the time. I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor. You can't beat that. But the fourth time I was actually questioned for a full 20 minutes by the officer (or a radio'd in backup) as to what exactly I was doing.
I explained that the officer was on private property (usually a parking lot), as was I. Just as the officer didn't ask for prior approval, neither had I, but I would happily leave if the owner of the property told me to (or posted signs to the effect of telling me I can't be there). Since neither occurred, I felt I had ever reason to watch the police who watch us. The officer said I could be arrested for trespass and for violating the officer's privacy. I explained to the near-arresting officer that no one has privacy of transport in public as long as they're on public property or on someone else's private property. I do believe you have the "right" to privacy within your home (close the shades), but the minute you leave your property, you're on someone's land, and that person has the right to dictate what can be done on their property. That didn't jive with the officer, but he let me go (as if he ever really had me in custody). Unbelievable.
I feel we should be watching ourselves more closely. I had a rear-camera on my old truck to back it up easier, and I'd happily use it to record if I felt I needed to. I've even come out supporting the idea of the State IF and ONLY IF everyone who works for the State had to be under constant surveillance -- constant. Public IP cameras in the mayor's office and car. Public IP cameras in the DMV. Public IP cameras following the President. Let amateurs watch them, if they wish, and tag them and bookmark them and watch those watching us. If the public official has a lot of power, they should be watched even on their private time -- no bribery, no scandals, no cheating, no lying. Get them in their kitchen, get them in their meetings. The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right? They have the power to tax/steal from us, right? They have the power to imprison/enslave us, right? We should know what they're doing -- all the time.
My family, however, are extremely conservative Christians who are in denial that I grew up and realized that their religion was just one of many and completely uncompelling. I have to sit calmly and let comments like "God is looking out for you!" float by after I comment that I just got a nice bonus for my hard work on a project at work. I'm cool with that. I'm the bigger person. I don't say "Wow that was lucky!" when they claim that their god was the root cause of some pleasant event in their lives. If I stood up for my beliefs the same way they shove theirs in my face knowing that I reject their claims of a god...there would be unhappiness.
I feel for you. I'm a Christian, and I would NEVER say anything like that because I believe (and I believe the Bible supports this thought) that God stopped "looking out" for everyone 2000 years ago. That was the reason for Christ's birth, death, conquering of death and return -- to remove God's demands for obedience from the picture, to replace it with what Christians call the Holy Spirit -- something that guides you to do right. God's not there killing people and promoting people, He's in His Kingdom ruling forever. That's it. You got a raise? I say be thankful that God created you with those hands and that mind and that drive. I say be thankful that the Spirit leads you in proper decisions, even if you're not a Christian and don't believe in the Spirit. A Christian that wonders why God doesn't answer prayers is one who isn't reading their Bible and is instead listening to some blowhard pastor who also isn't reading their Bible. A Christian who condemn loss of others as "Satan" or "God's Will" is in that same group. I am embarassed by these Christians because all I see is them wasting their lives, and ruining a good faith for others.
When Christians start living their lives based on what Jesus said and did, the feeling of hypocrisy and ridicule will go away -- maybe even opening the door for others to look at the faith from a perspective of how to better their own lives, and avoid judging others. God's rule over this fleshly world is over -- He's done what He needed to do, and He left us all with a very simple and basic path that really isn't all that difficult to understand. It's the egomaniacal pro-force Christians that have ruined it for the world, methinks.
I apologize for your family's distasteful comments and lack of allowance for you to live your life as you wish. They're probably "turn or burn" Christians, right?
I have sites with a PR of 6, and I can tell you that they got that way because of inbound links from other sites. In fact, when other sites dropped those links, my PR dropped (to 5, and even to 4). Getting more inbound links brought the PR back.
Think about those links, too. How often do you use common words in an HREF? I don't think there's a lot of weeding out of common words since the link to a site is usually either its name, or a description containing some important keywords.
I love seeing these technoscientists think they understand PageRank, but just like TimeCube, they're way, way off.
No mention of the free market either. Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver.
Fellows, I usually try to find time to
reference something other than those
entertaining topics. It might seem
evil to most, but I mean what I say!
Maybe it takes time for others to
adapt to my philosophies, or
rather for them to at least
keep my ideas in mind when they
examine their daily problems and
their concerns.
dada
I'm a very busy individual with peaks and valleys -- I go from 80 hour weeks for 3 months to 5 hour weeks for 3 months (on purpose). I see a lot of people in my fields burn-out regularly, and I wonder if it really has to do with workload, or if it has to do with a lot of other secondary causes. For me, the closest I came to burn-out was during a time of my life when my workload wasn't excessive (maybe 20 hours a week of billable labor and 20 hours a week of secondary support work). The workload was feeling stressful, but it was everything else in my life that was really having an effect that I didn't realize. I vented at the job, but it was carryover from other problems. I had a house that was too big ("housing prices always go up!" they said). I had big new cars that we replaced too often ("never buy anything on credit that depreciates"). I didn't take time to congregate with family and real friends -- my only friends were either employees, customers, or people in my field of work. I didn't take time to really have a vacation -- vacating from "reality." I wanted the newest toys, and I wanted them before others ("bragging rights.") My relationship with my significant other was cluttered with just that -- clutter. We had junk everywhere, and when we got our big 4 bedroom home, we had to fill it with more clutter or it felt empty. That clutter around me ended up cluttering my thought process peripherally, adding to the stress.
So what did I do? I downsized the clutter (physical, emotional and labor) and upsized the real personal time. I don't discuss business or politics or religion with my real friends and family -- instead we talk about reality, the now, the past. I "fired" a few of my worst customers who never seemed to pay on time but always called with this or that emergency. Sure, the billable rate was great, but the peripheral stress didn't balance out. I sold my home (and bought a few mobile homes throughout the regions I work and vacation in). I sold all 3 new cars and bought 2 used cars. We sold almost all our possessions except for our books and heirlooms (including all our technology, clothing, household goods, etc), and when we moved into our tiny 2 bedroom home, we bought new items that would last until our grandchildren would inherit them.
Now life is much easier. Work never stresses me, even when deadlines happen. I don't feel like I have to worry about traveling or spending time with my aging parents or younger siblings. I am able to really work on building real friendships of honesty and caring. My relationship with my significant other is so much better because we actually have time for one another, not for the junk and clutter we used to have. I actually work MORE now than I ever have, but I still have time for myself and for others.
Many of my old friends are burning out right now -- a few of them are millionaires who can't keep a grasp on living for today. I'd say a huge percentage of them are in major debt (50%+ of their gross income), some are living way beyond their means even though they're in the top 5% earning bracket. They hate their job, their spouses, their kids, their homes, their cars, and their lives -- because there is just too much. Where do they vent it? At work -- the place they spend 8-10 hours a day invested in. Their offices are clutter piles, their cars are messes, and their face and eyes show it.
If an outsider met them, they'd say that they work too much. They wouldn't blame the (leased) BMWs, the (mortgaged) McMansion, or the (on-credit) Armani sunglasses. They'd not even notice that they're living 1 person to a bedroom and practically 1 person to a bathroom, whereas historically we've seen the average around 2:1 on both, even 3:1 in some cases. They don't realize that the more you have, the more your mind is occupied on some level with all that stuff. On top of all that overhead, they're also paying probably 40-50% of their gross income to all the various government taxes, fees and costs. That's something most forget
Good question! 1 Peter was written for the Jews who accepted Christ after His Resurrection and Ascension. Christ had told His followers that He would return quickly/soon/in their lives. Was He a liar? I don't think so. In order for the Great Commission to be fulfilled (and end with end of the old age/covenant), the Gentiles also needed to see an outward conversion, not just an inward conversion, in preparation for the coming of the New Convenant with man -- the Kingdom, as some of us call it.
I see 1 Peter as a witness to the Jews to make sure they stick together as Christ would be returning quickly, while many of them were alive. Because those early Christians were living under the Great Commission, they DID have to do things that we today don't have to do. Remember, though, that I am a prophecy-fulfilled Christian, not one of those "Left Behind" kind.
I'd pay a lot of attention and take action (like, um, move away?). The thing is, any organization that has the potential to have a significant impact on your life (let's say, arrest you) shouldn't be straight up ignored.
:) Maybe moreso, hah. If you're interested in my take on Christianity, drop me an e-mail -- even if you're an atheist.
That's completely true, but as someone who has a faith belief, I will not offer resistance if they want to come and take me away. I believe in natural rights and I believe that I can not force anyone to do anything against their will. By default, the law is force. I can not take advantage of the law if it forces a person to do something they don't want to do.
I find anarcho-capitalism intriguing. What you want is for capitalism to extend into the public utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run on a capitalist model.
Yes, true, but not on the U.S. version of Capitalism. The U.S. is not capitalistic, and hasn't been for probably 150 years (actually, just before Lincoln was President). We are more mercantilistic (which is what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted!) -- government is there to give paternalistic treatment to the powerful and connected. So when I say "capitalism" I mean pure capitalism. My definition of pure capitalism is the opportunity for two people to barter or exchange where both parties will mutually profit. This is true of all bartering except when the State enters the picture (taxes, etc). You won't buy an pear for $50 because you won't gain anything, but you will buy one for $0.50, and both you and the supplier profit. That's the simplicity of the free market. What people need, others will provide for. THAT is capitalism.
Or, money shouldn't be involved at all, like libraries.
Funny, because I am donating money for a private library to be put together in my area. Libraries are terribly inefficient today -- a huge burden on the taxpayers who DON'T use them (the vast majority). Libraries were always funded by the wealthy for the betterment of society -- today that is not true, because the voters can steal from the non-voters for whatever they want. The library is a huge waste of YOUR money. I am doing my year-end taxes right now, and over 50% of my income has gone to government this year. Over 50%. Why? For libraries?
Religion is one of the most hierarchical organizations on earth. It's a step beyond autocracy. Did you ever get to choose your leader? What makes it right for him to rule? Why does he have that power? Do you know that he's perfect, or just take his word for it?
I have been ex-communicated by many "churches" in my area. I don't use the word church, almost never -- I use the word "congregation." I truly believe that most Christians have no clue about the Bible, because they sure don't live it. They're accepting the word of some egomaniacal "pastor" and then they teach their kids the mumbo jumbo that they learned. The Bible is pretty cool, actually -- almost all of it is irrelevant for Christians today. About 95% of it is what I call "the example of human trash;" the 5% that is pertinent is REALLY amazing and goes completely counter to how most Christians live today. Yet I can not judge their actions and their sins, I can only love them. I feel sorry that many Christians are wasting their mortal lives on mumbo jumbo, but that's their choice, their free will. Yes, they vote and steal from me. Yes, they give me a bad name. That's fine, I still love them. I also love the non-faithful, too
I don't know whether you'd appreciate this, but I'd think you would make an excellent senator or representative. I do appreciate it, and I appreciate your candor. I actually hear it often (I do quite a bit of public speaking, actually), and I've responded to it in an article titled I should be President? It's an old article, but still solid in terms of my bel
Here's a tough one -- I'm an anarcho-capitalist Christian, so I actually don't pay attention to whatever laws you guys voted for. They're irrelevant for how I live my life. That being said, MANY congregations that I serve are VERY cautious about violating copyright. There's a huge debate that comes up every 6 months or so over at www.churchmedia.net (worst community ever, but its the only one, so that's where we go) about what Fair Use is and isn't.
I use it all, and if anything, my use of "unlicensed products" probably sells more of it -- people see clips, gain interest (or regain interest), and go out and buy the DVD or CD. Ridiculous laws, but some people want to follow them.
I run a church media ministry out of my home, and we use DVD Shrink. The software is freeware, and it is excellent. It lets you select what scenes/chapters/frames you want to copy, and creates a new DVD-compatible clip on your hard drive. What is nice about VOB files (the DVD files) is that they are MPEG-compliant, so you can just rename the VOB extension to MPG and off you go.
If you need to shrink the file to lower res than DVD, I recommend TMPGenc, which works very well. You can also import your VOB/MPG into Adobe Premiere Pro and export it to a new format, while editing clips together with fades, titles, etc.
What is your budget? Do you prefer F/OSS? Windows? Mac? Linux?
Really? And how do you know that mugging is bad? Because people have been mugged, and the lesson learned is "that is bad!" Some kids touch hot stoves and burn themselves, and the outcome now is parents who are more careful. Some kids stuck keys in outlets, and the outcome is very cheap outlet protectors (provided by the free market, not by some ridiculous one-size-fits-all government law).
If hacking is profitable, anti-hacking will be done. The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.
Of course hacking is profitable -- the laws of supply and demand cover this as any service or product. The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot. For acts considered criminal, the value to the service provider will still meet what the market dictates. In this case, the chance of getting caught is low, so hacking might not be as profitable as selling pot, but it also depends on the demand. If hackers are making money, that means there is a demand for their service. If only a few hackers are willing to take the risk, a high demand and low supply of service providers means a high cost/profit. That's the nature of the free market.
Yet I don't think this profit will necessarily last forever -- even if laws change to make it easier to catch a hacker and even if the penalties are raised. The Internet is global, not local. With more third party countries gaining Internet access and more people willing to invest the time to learn to hack, I believe hackers will find their jobs outsourced as quickly as call centers and web developers have. So what?
The State will write laws to defend against hacking, but the reality is that the free market will provide better defense. There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk. Hackers make a profit only means that anti-hackers have a new business opportunity -- and if you're good with security, you should make a windfall NOW before the law interferes with YOUR ability to secure your clients. Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."
Take advantage of this business opportunity today -- on either side of the "battle."
You put that in quotes, but for many people, living in used mobile homes (how old are they if they're fully deprecated?) is substandard living.
Oldest is 1987 with an energy efficiency rating 100% better than a typical newer tract home. Newest is around 1993 or 1992 (can't recall). Some I paid ZERO for (walk-aways -- people had to move and I offered to get them out of the lot lease).
The key here is the definition of living. If you like being around your home and plan on retiring in it (not ON its future value), buy a "house." I personally like the freedom of changing if I need to, or if business/life warrants it. I also do not appreciate housing prices going up over time -- it is a game of inflation, not growing value.
Being "future-focused" shouldn't have to mean stocking up on gold, food and ammo and waiting for civilization to collapse.
Why do people sometimes think that is how I live? For me, future focused means trying to manage my time today so I have more time tomorrow to do what I want. I look at an efficient time preference as the #1 sign of wealth. I know that in my 20s, I could party it up. In my 30s, the body starts to slow down. Hit 40s, and death starts knocking (and even occurs for some). The 50s is when the body really starts giving out, and when you lose the efficiency in the market (I do believe that 30 year olds are often worth more to a market than 50 year olds because of adaptability and recent experience over lifetime of stuck-in-the-old-way experience). In the 60s, you're really feeling the heat (my mom hits 60 this year, my dad is 66, and they both are much slower than a decade ago). I have to balance my best work years with my best non-work years -- that means looking to the future as a focus for what I CAN do and what I'd WANT to do.
I'm sorry, but paying off a home for 37 years is not ownership, it is slavery to a smarter party. On a typical US$300,000 house with $50,000 down (most don't have that), you pay about US$19,000 in mortgage (6.5% fixed). US$16,200 of that is interest. Over the first ten years, you'll pay almost US$150,000 in interest alone. How is that ownership? Considering a 29% mortgage-to-gross ratio (which isn't standard, today), you'd have to pay US$65,500 to afford that loan, so in the first 10 years, over 2 years of your life is JUST in interest -- 20% of those work years. No thanks. That, to me, sounds fairly substandard in terms of freedom from stress and frustration.
It is no surprise to me that a lot of marriage problems start off with financial matters. It is no surprise to me that foreclosures are up 100-200% YOY in many regions. It is no surprise to me that many people lie about their equity-to-debt-to-income ratios. I'm not embarrassed about where I live, in fact I am proud that I can actually LIVE in terms of balancing work, recreation, family and faith. I'm pretty sure I give an equal amount to each, which to me gives me the stress-free life. The fact that there is savings on top of that, and some ability to wager some market risks (business ideas, etc), I think it is a super-standard way to live.
I'm not saying EVERYONE should live this way, I'm not saying it is the best way to live, but from the horror stories I hear from 90% of my friends and (younger) family, I can't understand why everyone wants to live the way they're living.
You pay too much in taxes, regulations, tariffs and other regulatory costs in the UK, so more people are poor. That's a fact that we don't see charts for.
I live in the US in what most would consider "substandard" to what the average Joe has. I sold my huge house and bought a few used (and fully depreciated) mobile homes (paid off). I sold my huge new cars and bought nice solid used ones (paid off). I downsized my utilities (more efficient windows and roof means lower energy bills, intelligent lighting means lower electrical bills, dumped cable for ondemand online). I raised my health insurance deductible for 5 years while socking away more than the deductible in gold and silver, so my health insurance is dirt cheap. I cook at home more than I eat out (unless I get comped for providing referrals for local restaurants). I probably live on 16% the cost of most people in my income level -- 84% of that savings goes to long term savings and short term vacations. My savings are semi-liquid (hard metal currency and some property) which keeps me from spending it stupidly.
I'm not thrifty, I'm just future-focused. There will come a day when I'll walk away from all that work and continue to live "substandard" but travel even more -- why bother with a 2500 square foot house when my 1000 square foot mobile homes throughout the country offer me huge savings over hotels, AND I can travel elsewhere with the money I saved not throwing 37 years of interest to the mortgage banks (30 year mortgage + 7 year average refinance to pay off).
I think what usually prevents people from doing that is that most people do not receive 50 vacation days per year, which is what would approximately be required to take four 2-3 week vacations every year. Most people don't even get half that number of days, especially not until they either a) reach the upper echelons, or b) work at the same company for years/decades.
I'm sure you're right, which is why I said even just 2-3 weeks a year is a start, but most don't even take that (or use it in double-day short trips or "sick days"). That's one of the dilemmas of being a W2'd employee -- along with less write-offs, lower gross income, and a big bag of other shortfalls.
I prefer peaks and valleys in terms of work investment -- I'd rather do 6-60 hour weeks in a row and then cut back to 3-0 hour weeks (averaging to 9 40-hour weeks). The uptime of work means driving hard to beat deadlines, beat budget caps and end up being more efficient than whatever trade held me back. The downtime of the time-off means recovery in a few days, and the rest is like paradise no matter what I do. More time for family, more time for friends (who rarely have time), more time to write, more time to travel.
I understand that the typical W2 employee CAN'T do that, but why are most geeks still salaried??? I know this would turn into an OT thread, so someone should post an article to the editors for Ask Slashdot: Why aren't more geeks 1099'd? If another person says stability, I'll go nuts, because there are more contract jobs out there than salaried positions open. Especially if you are willing to travel (and get a great per-diem). Even more so if you're willing to travel internationally with a per-diem total that can exceed the work contract.
When I think of vacations, I think of vacating -- leaving something empty of... me! A weekend trip is not a vacation; it takes me about 24 hours after landing to fully appreciate that I've left. It takes me 24 hours before the take-off flight to mentally prepare myself for returning. That means 48 hours is the prep time each way, at least in my experience. I need at least 10 days to truly appreciate a vacation -- and that means no cell phone, e-mail or web.
I take trips all the time, at least 2-3 trips a month. I always take my cell and PDA with me, but I usually leave the web behind. If I am taking a short trip, it is non-web business related, and I write off as much as legally possible. But if I start jumping online, that business trip becomes inefficient for me, and I don't get my work done, so even with a write-off it is still a financial loss.
I can not imagine NOT taking 2-3 weeks off each quarter for a real vacation. What prevents people from doing that? I hear it from friends who are overworked (usually because they are over-indebted): they can't leave because they'll miss something important at work. I never heard of this before because I always make sure that my future replacement in my position is trained for handling any emergencies when I am gone. I guess too many people are too protective of their position -- this usually means they see the future as a dead end or they see their abilities as plateaud. In this case, not taking a vacation really means they are just trying to hold ground.
I can't think of a single project that my expertise is needed on for the entire project, or even 50% of it. If you are good at handling emergencies, people will pay you just to be around holding their hand during non-emergencies. This is the opposite of expendable, and it also opens up your schedule for vacations -- real ones.
If your life doesn't allow for it, what are you doing even bothering to live? What is so important that a vacation would create a risk/reward ratio that is out of whack? For many, I think you have to look at lifestyle -- is your house so big that being out of work for one year will hurt you? Sell it. Are your monthly expenses so big that you can't pay them for 24 months with zero income? Sell things and learn to cut expenses. Is your budget so tight that when you do have time to take off, you have to pay for the trip on credit cards and it'll take 3-10 years of future income to cover your trip? start prioritizing what is important.
If I don't get 2-3 weeks of downtime each quarter, I am not efficient. Also, being away from work lets my customers know how much they need me when there ARE problems. The risk/reward ratio is very small -- little risk, and a huge reward from both sides: I'm personally rewarded by downtime, and I'm also rewarded if an emergency happens that I would be best at solving.
Life is way too short to focus only on working and buying a bigger house and a bigger car and a bigger TV or video game system. Even just 3 weeks a year of downtime is barely over 6% of the year -- a very meager idea of vacationing. Then again, I think many people give 10% to God, 30% to their employer, 4% to family, 6% to themselves and 50% to the State. I guess there's the prime problem.