Yes. That $100k includes home equity.
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 3
If you factor in the fact that most 32 year olds should not be renting, their equity in their home or condo should easily put them above $100k. Often CNN Money will feature a column called "millionaires in the making" where they describe the breakdown of someone's net worth. Home equity is almost always the largest piece.
If you rent, get used to being perpetually behind the curve. You are better off buying even if it means downgrading.
Many people have done the math on social security - its frightening. Here it is in its shortest, most brutal form:
In order to reasonably support the people expected to make social security claims over the next thirty years, taxes would have to be doubled at a minimum.
In other words, it is only a matter of time before social security breaks. The only things that can save are an incredible development in the economy that drastically increases real wealth in a short period of time, or massive immigration to increase the number of paying (but not deducting) parties by a huge amount. Its just turned into a pyramid scheme at this point, and that really is what drive most immigration policy.
There are dozens of linux distros you cn get that meet any specific desire. Kudos to RedHat for actually trying to differentiate themselves with continued enhancements. If you don't like what they are doing, fortunately there are dozens of other distros out there and surely one is right for you. Everyone wins.
RedHat is one of the most important companies involved in getting linux accepted and used outside of its traditional audience, along with IBM and now Sun. I personally like RedHat 8 and wish them coninued good fortune.
I think the point you are trying to make is that it is often better to be using the language most other people are using. The allows transfer/reuse of skills, tools, existing libs, etc.
In a real world environment there is almost no reason to adopt a minority language - outside of everything else it often just creates a code-island. Now, if you can make OCAML the "majority" language of your group, you are set.
Good point, thats true. I have a coworker who also brings up lisp machines as a counterexample. JXTA chips (which I think are Java-on-silicon) haven't been a roarding success either...
C is used because it allows you to access system resources directly. You must do this to have a perfomant system. It doesn't matter if the language is C specifially, it just happens to be the most succesful systems language.
One day an operating system will be implemented as a set of APIs on a VM consisting of a very small set of machine-dependent code, but not yet.
I never in any of my posts endorse left of center politics. I am saying that real changes is brough about by force. The American Revolution is a classic example. Do you think they just asked the Brits to leave? No, the slaughtered them.
My point stands - you do not get real change by asking for it. You have to take it.
The Bolsheviks smashed nothing but a lot of infrastructure and the lives of millions.
Communism was evil, but so was the system it replaced. The Bolsheviks destroyed a monarchy that was among the most despotic, ruthless, and intransigent in history.
And they took it all down. Was the result better? History says no. History does say they wiped they obliterated the Romanov royal house.
What a ridiculous joke. You're going to get on your privately funded, government surveilled connection and bring about rapid change? Be real folks. If you want change you get it by hanging someone from a tree or putting a bullet through someone's head.
If you think going online and whining in some blog is going to bring about rapid change, you're pissing in the wind. The IMF protestors have one thing right - if you want attention you've got to break something. The Bolsheviks had it down even better - if you want real change you have to smash an entire system.
What people are now realizing is that one shot of education, taken right after high school, in a four-year package, is typically not suitable for the career and job changes that will eventually happen for most of us. You hear the term "lifelong learning" being thrown around now and it has a grain of validity. Many of us at some point will return to some type of educational institution for further coursework at some point, even if it is while we are working.
Colleges will still have a role. Many of them are adapting and offering more options to working individuals and other "part time" students. Many offer online courses. What colleges bring to the table is legitimacy. Most people still put more stock in a course from MIT than one from DeVry. If someone says "MIT", you immediately assume that they had to meet a fairly stringent academic requirement and that the lecturer or prof also had to meet a high requirement. The good schools literally have had hundreds of years to shape their good reputations, and its likely they will continue to capitalize on them.
Funny, some of those unbathed, ill-groomed troglodytes dropped out of college, started companies, wrote software, and took over the computer industry.
No they didn't. Even if you are referring to dropouts like Bill Gates or David Filo, these guys were always smart. Smarter than the other people around them. They didn't get smart by playing WarCraft and trying to pass it off as a college course.
This is one of the most interesting, well written posts I have read on this site in the last two years.
Its a lovely retort to the huge misconception that all things geeky somehow make you more intelligent (Since they don't make you physcially stronger they must have some value, right?).
Education in North America is at a dismal low. Why is it that every educational contest seems to produce a home-schooled student as the winner? This tells us that a lay-person who actually cares (mom or dad) is capable of producing far better students than our dismal system.
Firstly I think you are underestimating how many people roll their own support. I mean, when is the last time in an office of any kind that someone phoned the manufacturer when a desktop box had a problem? Most people just try to hash it out themselves, which they have been doing with PCs for years.
Re:Good for linux(?), probably not good for Sun
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
but how do you define "good luck"?
Uh, lets see, sales??
I'm willing to concede my point if you can provide a statistic for their SunRay boxes that isn't asymptotically approaching zero.
Sorry, Sun cannot compete with any of the major PC players on the major costs of pushing out boxes. Think Sun can get a cheaper cost from a vendor than Dell? Dream on.
And what does Windows XP have to do with it? I'm talking about the cost for Dell or Sun to produce a linux box, in which case neither pays for XP.
McNealy has been trash talking Microsoft for years. Look at where it has gotten Sun shareholders.
Scott had the opportunity to make nice a few years back like Steve Jobs, and just accept the inevitable - Bill controls a huge swath of the computing market. Admitting such helped keep Apple in the game, and it got some good MS software on OSX quickly.
I'm not saying that MS and Sun would exactly be in bed today had Scott made nice, but certainly a less adversarial approach could have kept Sun out of the crosshairs.
Good for linux(?), probably not good for Sun
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sun has gone the route of trying to sell low-end desktops to push an agenda (promote Java, dethrone MS). They haven't had good luck in this market.
What compelling reason is there to buy a Sun box over a the umpteen beige box vendors, IBM, Compaq, Dell, etc? Linux is only part of a low-priced solution. Does Sun think they can make a box cheaper than Dell?
I'm amazed at the yellow-bellied reposnses I see here today. You're desperately hoping that if you just extend an olive branch to these people that they'll leave you alone.
You can prototype as rapidly with mod_perl - a layer like Apache::ASP creates a PHP-like model, except it uses perl. If you have years of pervious perl experience, this is helpful, otherwise, probably not.
I still stick by my point that I don't see the point per se to a new language and runtime that is already so similar to perl, just to do web scripting. If PHP brought something new to the table, fine, but in my opinion it is just a crippled perl. PEAR is certainly a crippled CPAN.
To the carpentry analogy I can claim the kitchen analogy - any master chef will tell you that you only need three or four knives. There simply isn't a practical reason for the twelve knife set.
Likewise with Perl and PHP. As your organization matures, you will find that your offline and online processing reuses techniques and tools. Why not reuse packages themselves? Using your approach I would more or less end up coding everything twice, once to support perl users doing offline work, and once to support PHP people doing the same/similar thing online.
The converse also holds - if you are already using PHP online it makes sense to use it for offline work as well. These languages are so similar in capabilties that I don't buy the domain-specific arguments.
In short - to reuse the packages you may have already written to do offline work. mod_perl lets you reuse your existing logic.
What I am basically saying is that I don't see the value in a domain-specific language for web scripting. Even outside of perl, java and C# provide good tools for reusing the language you already use elsewhere in your web apps.
Slashdot Mirror
If you rent, get used to being perpetually behind the curve. You are better off buying even if it means downgrading.
In order to reasonably support the people expected to make social security claims over the next thirty years, taxes would have to be doubled at a minimum.
In other words, it is only a matter of time before social security breaks. The only things that can save are an incredible development in the economy that drastically increases real wealth in a short period of time, or massive immigration to increase the number of paying (but not deducting) parties by a huge amount. Its just turned into a pyramid scheme at this point, and that really is what drive most immigration policy.
RedHat is one of the most important companies involved in getting linux accepted and used outside of its traditional audience, along with IBM and now Sun. I personally like RedHat 8 and wish them coninued good fortune.
Which is the same comment I would apply to most of the things I see brought up here. I don't helper apps has anything to do with the OS itself.
In a real world environment there is almost no reason to adopt a minority language - outside of everything else it often just creates a code-island. Now, if you can make OCAML the "majority" language of your group, you are set.
Good point, thats true. I have a coworker who also brings up lisp machines as a counterexample. JXTA chips (which I think are Java-on-silicon) haven't been a roarding success either...
One day an operating system will be implemented as a set of APIs on a VM consisting of a very small set of machine-dependent code, but not yet.
My point stands - you do not get real change by asking for it. You have to take it.
Communism was evil, but so was the system it replaced. The Bolsheviks destroyed a monarchy that was among the most despotic, ruthless, and intransigent in history.
And they took it all down. Was the result better? History says no. History does say they wiped they obliterated the Romanov royal house.
If you think going online and whining in some blog is going to bring about rapid change, you're pissing in the wind. The IMF protestors have one thing right - if you want attention you've got to break something. The Bolsheviks had it down even better - if you want real change you have to smash an entire system.
And that's getting fixed too. Every software shop in Silicon Valley is opening up development centers in India.
Colleges will still have a role. Many of them are adapting and offering more options to working individuals and other "part time" students. Many offer online courses. What colleges bring to the table is legitimacy. Most people still put more stock in a course from MIT than one from DeVry. If someone says "MIT", you immediately assume that they had to meet a fairly stringent academic requirement and that the lecturer or prof also had to meet a high requirement. The good schools literally have had hundreds of years to shape their good reputations, and its likely they will continue to capitalize on them.
No they didn't. Even if you are referring to dropouts like Bill Gates or David Filo, these guys were always smart. Smarter than the other people around them. They didn't get smart by playing WarCraft and trying to pass it off as a college course.
Its a lovely retort to the huge misconception that all things geeky somehow make you more intelligent (Since they don't make you physcially stronger they must have some value, right?).
Education in North America is at a dismal low. Why is it that every educational contest seems to produce a home-schooled student as the winner? This tells us that a lay-person who actually cares (mom or dad) is capable of producing far better students than our dismal system.
Firstly I think you are underestimating how many people roll their own support. I mean, when is the last time in an office of any kind that someone phoned the manufacturer when a desktop box had a problem? Most people just try to hash it out themselves, which they have been doing with PCs for years.
Uh, lets see, sales??
I'm willing to concede my point if you can provide a statistic for their SunRay boxes that isn't asymptotically approaching zero.
"Selling out" to Microsoft hasn't exactly hurt Dell, whose market cap is nearly seven times that of Sun's.
And what does Windows XP have to do with it? I'm talking about the cost for Dell or Sun to produce a linux box, in which case neither pays for XP.
Scott had the opportunity to make nice a few years back like Steve Jobs, and just accept the inevitable - Bill controls a huge swath of the computing market. Admitting such helped keep Apple in the game, and it got some good MS software on OSX quickly.
I'm not saying that MS and Sun would exactly be in bed today had Scott made nice, but certainly a less adversarial approach could have kept Sun out of the crosshairs.
What compelling reason is there to buy a Sun box over a the umpteen beige box vendors, IBM, Compaq, Dell, etc? Linux is only part of a low-priced solution. Does Sun think they can make a box cheaper than Dell?
I'm amazed at the yellow-bellied reposnses I see here today. You're desperately hoping that if you just extend an olive branch to these people that they'll leave you alone.
I still stick by my point that I don't see the point per se to a new language and runtime that is already so similar to perl, just to do web scripting. If PHP brought something new to the table, fine, but in my opinion it is just a crippled perl. PEAR is certainly a crippled CPAN.
PHP outside of the webserving context makes almost no sense.
Likewise with Perl and PHP. As your organization matures, you will find that your offline and online processing reuses techniques and tools. Why not reuse packages themselves? Using your approach I would more or less end up coding everything twice, once to support perl users doing offline work, and once to support PHP people doing the same/similar thing online.
The converse also holds - if you are already using PHP online it makes sense to use it for offline work as well. These languages are so similar in capabilties that I don't buy the domain-specific arguments.
What I am basically saying is that I don't see the value in a domain-specific language for web scripting. Even outside of perl, java and C# provide good tools for reusing the language you already use elsewhere in your web apps.