I just looked up the prices on SSDs and they appear to still be going down although they've never been inexpensive.
I didn't see any that were quite 4X but close.
One Thai HD plant has shut down and they are forecasting shortages. It normally follows that with prices going up retailers are going to have to estimate/guess at what they are going to have to pay and raise prices on current inventory high enough to replace that inventory at the new prices and they aren't likely to guess low. On top of that we have supply and demand. With shortages, demand is likely to exceed supply forcing prices even higher. Conversely prices "this much higher" are going to lower demand, although by how much is difficult to say. It will likely be enough to hurt the retail industry as well as manufacturers of computers and accessories.
Now the kicker is how long this may go on. The current floods are going to put quite a knot in the supply chain. Depending on damage that could take up to a year of more to clear. OTOH if the floods continue, or repeat this could turn out to be a long term problem driving the prices of computers back up.
As to the cloud: My degree and profession have been in CS. Personally, I think the cloud is one of the worst mistakes we've ever made in IT. I would never put business or personal data into cloud storage even if it is more economical and likely better backed up. It's also far too vulnerable with access to many agencies that just might want a peek.
As Scareduck said you might want to check your facts. Most are not getting their money back. Then take LightSquared, they even set the govt loan up so the private investors get their money back first which is against the law. IOW it's the govt that broke the rules.
Seem like? Demanding free college, demanding govt supply jobs... Focus on those things that usually go hand in hand with the govt regulators who hope to go to work for those companies.
I beg to differ.
1. It's anything but populist. They represent a tiny fraction of the population and their behavior is seen as anti American by middle America.
2 Sure they are: Emphasizing peace with near a 1000 arrested.
3. they are being supported by the Unions, Liberals, and far left. The Unions and far left are pretty strong supporters of the Democrats.
You have to remember that the mainstream media is ultra left so as long as they can treat the protesters as anti capitalistic and the conservatives/Tea Party as racist/extremist even though their goals are similar they back one and vilify the other. They have even gone so far as to make up stories about Tea Party demonstrations which have always been peaceful and non racist. That alone makes me lean toward their view and away groups with near a 1000 arrested and their supporters. These are the things that make me vote against the Democrats. Small government, minimal regulation, and the free market. There are those who worry about the big corporations. I worry about people like Soros who's stated goal is to take down the system and he's backing the demonstrators as are the unions and socialists.
OTOH I don't think it's the corporations have become too big, but rather government/politicians are too heavily involved with the corporations. If the corporations, even though large remained completely private, sink or swim there would be less likely hood of the corporate cronyism/graft and corruption.
Politicians as well as higher ranking officers in agencies such as the EPA and FCC know they have a job waiting for them in corporate America the second they leave government. They sets the stage for them preparing things for the industry while they are still in the government so they'll have a cushy job waiting. There is no waiting period so they can set up their new job while still on the government payroll and setting favorable regulations for that company when they take over.
Consultant is an invention of big business to underpay... ?? I found consulting pays very well. When I retired I could have gone back to the same job, in the same office, doing exactly what I did the day before "at considerably more pay" as a consultant. Yes, I would have had to pay my own expenses but I could bill them.
Thing is that going on the market as a consultant and making considerably more take home pay, I could set my contracts or rather negotiate them. I could work as many hours as I wanted. Sure you can look only at the negatives and then make them come true, but consulting does not mean you have have to be gone 3 weeks out of 4, it does not mean you must work round the clock. Often it may mean you don't even have to travel much. As I said, I could have gone back to my old office the day after I retired, doing the same thing I had been doing, but for a lot more take home pay and I had a whole 5 mile drive to work. OTOH I was looking into a different job where purchasing a relatively fast airplane with long range was economically feasible. I would have worked out the three year contract, sold the plane and been money ahead.
The economic down turn has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and everything to do with people living beyond their means (running the housing bubble up) as well as government intervention into private business requiring companies to make loans without being able to make ability to pay a requirement. It has to do with adding regulations that cost many thousands of dollars to comply. It has to do with a constantly changing regulatory environment leaving businesses afraid to invest or hire. It also has to do with politicians lying about the status of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the previous administration.
There are many reasons for the current economic situation, but none of them are due to the rich few compared to the average wage earner, but it sounds good to those not understanding economics, and it sounds very good to those jealous of the rich and begrudging them of their money. I'm not rich and I could care less that some one makes many times my income. I'm able to live my life in the style I like. Sure I'd like a bit more, but were I younger I'd also be willing to work for it.
Agreed. They would be defeating the reason for the LLC in the first place, however most of these things are not legally deductible as business expenses. Second homes, boats, cars... Exceptions would be cars, and airplanes needed for transportation. If you are large enough and cover enough territory then the aircraft expenses are valid and deductible. I could double the number of locations in a week with my own airplane compared to going commercial. However there is another catch that those not in business don't realize about LLCs. In many instances if you do not show "any profit" for three years it gets listed as a hobby and all of the income is taxable. You can't just create an LLC and expect it to be a tax saver from then on. IOW you can't just use it to just keep buying things to live the "good life"and expense them legally.. the amount of "red tape" for acquisitions is phenomenal
I ran an LLC on the side about 25 years ago. It was simple to do and cost a couple hundred dollars in fees.. I couldn't afford the same business at present due to all the new regulations. The consulting I could still do, but I retired so I don't have to work those kind of hours. That's mainly travel expenses and as long as you don't take your family with you the book keeping is fairly simple.
As a programmer I can set up a business, I can consult, I can hire programmers. IF OTOH I worked for IBM I am not allowed to do that for some time after employment. I have served as a consultant and it was well after 86. Unless you worked for IBM recently you can start up your own business. There are many out there doing it at present.
Although things have changed somewhat, I didn't earn my degree until age 50 which is when I started on my masters. I've found that desired skill sets vary not only from company to company but even from location to location. If you have the skill set they want "generally" you will get hired, BUT and it's a big but... It seems contradictory as companies want workers who will be loyal and work their way up the ladder however now days the norm is to change jobs at least twice or three times during a career. They want a skilled IT person on one hand and on the other they want one who is going to be ambitious enough to move up the ladder which often means about the time you really become proficient you move up the ladder and into something else. Unless they are exceptional that route is not open to the older IT person as they will be ready to retire in a relatively short time.
Attitudes toward older workers also tend to be some what geographic and even political. Older workers tend to be more conservative than younger and that seems to play a part geographically. Seems strange I know, but I've seen political biases play a large part in hiring. Also programming is "generally" considered a younger person's work. IE some one just out of school, while most will move onto more advanced work as they age such as project management. Again, it varies widely geographically and from company to company. It may be necessary to move a considerable distance to find some one looking for your skill set. Which reminds me, often workers end up too specialized and with too narrow a skill set which limits their saleability in the marketplace.
My field and degree are in CS *but* like many corporations, I consider programming as "grunt work" unless it's for one of my own projects. I had requests *from* companies to turn in applications after earning my BS in CS while just starting on my Masters and I was in my early 50's.
The Japanese have a whole different philosophical outlook and work ethic. It's more than just honoring their elders. They view age as an accumulation of wisdom gathered through hard work and study over the years. It's not just working a 9 to 5 job and then going home to vegetate in front of the TV with a beer. When I was working on my Bachelors the comment came up in one class that today's US workers were not as "success oriented" as earlier generations. Out of 40 of us only 3 even knew what the instructor meant by "success oriented". Every one else thought it just meant being a success.
Every large corporation that I know of including hospitals are still using XP or an incarnation of XP.
I use Win 7 and like it, particularly after having tried Vista and went back to XP.
However...Although there are some specific pluses for the cloud and many things work well in the cloud, but I think we will eventually find the cloud to be one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made in computing. It basically opens up your data to any agency that want's to look at it and without you ever knowing. A hack at the wrong place can take down large numbers of users and it puts critical data in more centralized locations making it much more attractive to hackers.
I worked in FDA Validated systems that required you have all your data, software, and hardware within your immediate control which would have eliminated the use of the cloud. Even network hardware had to be documented and serial numbers recorded. Any time any piece of hardware was changed it had to be revalidated. Can you imagine being able to track everything in the cloud, or those providing the services would be willing to go through the validation process.
The "PC" which to most of us is any stand alone computer will be around for a long time to come. I still purchase new equipment using vacuum tubes albeit high powered RF amps.
So many keep touting the cloud and I think today's perception of the cloud is going to cause a lot of regret. Putting you personal information on some one's servers where they, the govt, and possibly any one else can see without you knowing.
Being a retired CS professional I see the cloud as *potentially* one of the most dangerous facets that have developed within computing. Certainly there aspects of it that are very handy, cost saving, and time saving, but I think it's being used for far more than is safe.
I'm amazed that the simple system using Windows even passed the FDA validation tests. It would not have passed a simple FDA network validation if there is any chance that a signal could interfere with the operation. I was a project manager for implementing Laboratory Information Management Systems, better known as LIMS and we would have had a problem using wireless devices just to pass data from testing. If another wireless device on the same frequency or close to it could block or interfere is would have failed.
Frost had it right. Each and every decision we make will in some way effect the rest of our lives, even though they may be a simple as a fork in the road, they may have a significant impact later on as did EOF.
You are correct in that this is not a problem unique to the Democrats which has made the Republicans some what hypocritical.
They were once the party for small government, only the influence of the Tea Partiers saying enough is enough have they returned (most likely some what reluctant ) to the original stance.
Still, the current administration has spend more and put us farther in debt than all other administrations combined. So they have carried it to quite an extreme.
SS is not simply, you pay in and get your money back when you retire. You pay a percentage of what you make into a fund. Based on what you paid in over your highest 35 years averaged and multiplied by a formula (that changes) you come up with your SS payments. Typically most will take out substantially more than what they put in. So it takes more people paying in than taking out, but we don't have that happening. Add to that, the govt TOOK the money from the SS fund and spent it for other things. About the only thing left in the SS fund are a bunch of IOUs so they have to pull the money from the general fund to cash in the IOUs.
One answer is to raise the retirement age. That will both delay taking out the money and shorten the time the money is taken out.
Had the money been invested in the market which has had a historical average gain between 10 and 11% per year rather than setting in an account that had to be administered which cost money (IE lost value) most of us would be millionaires and the account would be overflowing. Using the rule of 76, at 10% average your money would have doubled roughly every 7 years and over 35 years it would have doubled 5 times. Just the first 4,000 would have been worth roughly $128,000 but one year later the second 4,000 would have also doubled to put you at 256,000 plus. Actually just the money in the first 5 years would have made you a millionaire by retirement.
Just look up Social Security on Google.
SS was *BASED* on the premise that the work force would continue to grow and it was based on an average life span far less than what is now average. For those born in 1940 and into retirement now, the average lifespan for a white male was 62.1 and female was 66.6. The expected life span of those now entering, or hoping to enter the work force are (born in 1990) was 72.7 and 79.4. So we have more people drawing more from an account, living considerably longer than what the system was based on, and with far fewer paying into the system than was planned.
Yet although they want them, they overwhelmingly do not want taxes raised.
Entitlements have to be lowered or eliminated although that will have to be done over time and slowly.
The big problem with SS is they changed it from it's original scope to cover all workers, making it into a giant Ponzi scheme. IOW it only would work as long as there were enough *new* participants to pay for those who were retiring. Many of us were suckered into planning our retirements with that SS check in mind. It's not enough to retire on by itself, but meant you didn't have to lay away/invest as much. All of us, or at least most would have been far better off had that money went into the market. The market would have been much more healthy and we would have had a lot more money. "It's possible" t he economy would not be in the mess it's in now even with the housing slump which might not have existed. Of course that was brought on by the govt requiring loan institutions no make ability to pay a requirement for a housing loan.
But at-any-rate, with millions of workers planned their retirements with SS being a part of it, Just removing SS would create a disaster. OTOH slowly phasing it out, or at least back to what it was originally would save a lot and keep the program solvent.
A couple nights ago, CNN was saying that the people wanted the tax hikes yet they ignored their own poll where a substantial majority said they did NOT want tax hikes.
Again, The Tea Party (No I'm still not a member) is for following the Constitution. Except for the conservatism they are much like the Libertarians. They are demanding we/The government follow the constitution. The situations above should be credited to the Progressives and Liberals who were behind them, not the conservatives.
Another point, if the debt limit is not raised we have enough money coming in every month to pay: 1. The interest on the National Debt (IOW service the debt), 2. pay the Military, 3 Pay Social Security, and other entitlements and still have money left over. What we would not have is money to pay the bloated government created by Obama and Bush. It would be time to lay off a *lot* over government employees who weren't needed in the first place. Of course as The Fed under Obama will prioritize who gets paid I'd lay odds on the money being divided between Obama's supporters in the govt.
At that point we'd truly see who Obama supports and who he doesn't.
Baloney. The Tea Party (No I'm not a member) is a group of people who are for small government and demand the government, like the rest of us, keep a budget (they haven't had one in two years) and stick to it without the deficit spending. Only Congress has the power to borrow money. The 14th amendment does not give Obama the power to change the debt limit but straying from the constitution has not bothered him before. Obama has raised the debt more than all other presidents combined. To quote others, "We have a spending problem, not an income problem".
When he came into office he could blame Bush and rightly so, but now it's his spending problem created by him and his wars created and expanded by him including the war that isn't a war. He wants to tax the rich, but the top 5% pay well over 50% of taxes while the bottom 50% pay none so the rich are already supporting more than half the country. If they taxed that top 5% at 100% they still wouldn't have enough to cover Obama's spending. For those who take the time to look, that taxing starts at either 200 or 250 thousand dollars which would include most small businesses and they are the ones who do most of the hiring. They aren't hiring because of the mass of regulations that have been heaped on them and the uncertainty for what they can expect in the future. Student loans? They now cost twice as much since being taken over by the government and removed from private enterprise. Health care? It'll be less accessible and more expensive instead of increasing accessibility and lowering costs.
BTW the lines were busy, but not with the message Obama wanted. The vast majority were for holding the line and not raising the debt limit.
The Republicans (No I'm not one of them either) have come up with several plans including "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which Obama Vetoed. He complains they are doing nothing, yet it's Obama who has not come up with one single plan (Including a budget in the last two years). He even shot down Reid's plan when Reid and Boehner were close to being in agreement. He complains about the Republicans not doing anything and moves the goals when they do. If there is a shut down, it's entirely up to the Obama and the Fed as to who gets paid and who doesn't as they are the ones who do the prioritizing.
In the end it is Obama's responsibility as it is he who has refused to budge on key issues, not the Republicans or Democrats although the Senate has done less than any other senate in (I believe) the last 100 years. They've reportedly voted on only 15 bills in this last session.
I actually believe that Obama wants us to not only fail to agree on the debt ceiling which BTW does not cause a default, but he want's a default. He's said in the past that the US should be on equal footing with "other" third world countries" and views the US as a neo colonial empire.
Often in a large corporation code may end up being used at many sites around the world and have to interface with other programs. Other programmers are likely to have to write programs that work with the original code and may even be incorporated into the original software. Without internal documentation they can take many times longer to write due to the shortsightedness of the original programmer. Writing a program to do one thing, or a piece of science is fine *IF* there is no likelihood of that software ever being enhanced or integrated with or into other software. I spent months deciphering undocumented code written by people who thought they knew how to code. To give them credit the code did do what they wanted, but there were major problems when it had to interface with a commercial program, Unfortunately the code was written by those located far up the food chain and word was, "It will not be changed" as the whole corporation used it. My only comment was "It will, sooner or later. Some years later the whole corporation went to a commercial database. They had to assign a team to convert the data and thought they'd simply export the original data into a spreadsheet and then import it into the new system. Unfortunately when they tried this they ended up with hundreds of thousands of non unique records. My guess would be it cost them a minimum of several million dollars to do something that would have only taken minutes had the original program been written following good programming practices... IOW Non professional programmers such as engineers and professionals in other fields that learn how to write a program approach from an entirely different perspective. What they do, works... usually, more or less, but they write to do a specific job, period with no thought as to future use of the code. They rarely follow good programming practices, write spaghetti code... lack of documentation,... Earlier I saw a comment about not having time to do all that which is not normally considered a valid excuse, but a programmer in that field would be able to write good code that would do the job, be adaptable, do it faster, AND once finished others would be able to follow and understand the code. To top it off the programmer would likely get the job done in far less time.
NetFlix had a sweetheart deal with the studios that gave the studios second thoughts soon after. It was inevitable that their costs would go up substantially as soon as the contracts were renewed.
However it's also inevitable that much of the free or inexpensive videos and programs are likely to disappear in the not too distant future.
Depending on the channel, Adds (and channel logos) are any thing from a nuisance to intolerable. Often channels will put a crawler across the bottom that completely renders text associated with the image unreadable. Sci-Fi and Weather channels are particularly bad, but many others are close behind. Even subscription movie channels have logos and adds, so NetFlix doesn't look all that bad and they have premium content at a fraction of the cost of cable or satellite.
However even with high speed broad band that is many times faster than needed even for HD videos, I often find pixelization, breakups, and pauses when viewing streaming. I've never found the problem to be at either end but some where in the middle using tracrt. The same program/movie can be downloaded in a fraction of the time and played with no problems so the speed has to be varying while streaming. It could also be some sort of interference
I'd much prefer the ability to download movies or programs to watch for a week or two before pitching them as there are few I'd want to purchase, but I also find streaming to be rather intolerant of interruptions where I may have to leave for an hour or so.
Most adults do not have much of a choice if they have to travel in their work. I used to travel between the Mid West and East Coast quite often for business. Do you think I could have told my boss, I'll take an extra day and drive, or ride the buss? How about 3 extra days to the West Coast instead of half a day? I'd have been looking for a job in short order. Time is money and most of the biz-jets are not luxury accommodations, but just privately owned jets about as fancy inside as the airborne coach class cattle cars. We could hit 2 or 3 locations East of the Mississippi in one day although 3 would have been pushing it and made for a very long day. With check in times, flying through hubs, and other commercial delays. Commercial I could expect to make one useful stop and maybe get to the location for the next day.
As to the back of the hand in pat downs. I saw a video the other night of a woman being patted down. The agent used the back of her hand, but rolled it so at one point she had the woman's breast cupped in her hand. At the speed she was moving it appeared she was not enjoying the pat down any more than the passenger, but still...
I tried Chrome and although fast I didn't like the organization. After a week I went back to Firefox...memory leaks and all.
Although it's not the fastest, I've not found Firefox bloated, but I don't install a lot of addons.
Maybe I should give it another try.
Trashy novels were mentioned earlier. One thing you learn by reading a lot and that's the "old masters" were also "dirty old men":-)) Many of those masterpieces are just as raunchy as late night satellite or cable TV.
I would disagree almost completely with the previous statement. The movie leaves much out and only presents the visual representation. You are left to "infer" the character's background and why they respond the way they do. Some movies will give a bit of insight into the main characters, or even specific characters, but they have neither time no budget to treat the characters psychological backgrounds more than superficially. A book has to give you much more background than the movie.
Lost? Another reality show. I've done a lot of things in my life and find reality shows to be boring in the extreme. I've never been able to stay interested for more than a show or two at most, despite how much "eye candy" they present. I can not think of one show on the major networks I've found interesting.
In the end the book, or even article requires the reader's brain to do a lot more work than just viewing a video. I find that when reading the news, I skip the video clips and only check out the textual presentations. I do that with finances as well.
I have seen a definite shift away from reading in my many years, yet I tend to be an early adopter when it comes to tech. I like e-books, but see a format other than one that can be read on computer or any e-book as completely unnecessary. The multiple formats only guarantee that the life of an e-book is likely to be short lived.
I see the lack of reading for learnings sake just as I see today's entitlement society. They may want it but are unwilling to work for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked up the prices on SSDs and they appear to still be going down although they've never been inexpensive. I didn't see any that were quite 4X but close. One Thai HD plant has shut down and they are forecasting shortages. It normally follows that with prices going up retailers are going to have to estimate/guess at what they are going to have to pay and raise prices on current inventory high enough to replace that inventory at the new prices and they aren't likely to guess low. On top of that we have supply and demand. With shortages, demand is likely to exceed supply forcing prices even higher. Conversely prices "this much higher" are going to lower demand, although by how much is difficult to say. It will likely be enough to hurt the retail industry as well as manufacturers of computers and accessories. Now the kicker is how long this may go on. The current floods are going to put quite a knot in the supply chain. Depending on damage that could take up to a year of more to clear. OTOH if the floods continue, or repeat this could turn out to be a long term problem driving the prices of computers back up. As to the cloud: My degree and profession have been in CS. Personally, I think the cloud is one of the worst mistakes we've ever made in IT. I would never put business or personal data into cloud storage even if it is more economical and likely better backed up. It's also far too vulnerable with access to many agencies that just might want a peek.
As Scareduck said you might want to check your facts. Most are not getting their money back. Then take LightSquared, they even set the govt loan up so the private investors get their money back first which is against the law. IOW it's the govt that broke the rules.
Seem like? Demanding free college, demanding govt supply jobs... Focus on those things that usually go hand in hand with the govt regulators who hope to go to work for those companies.
Right wing? Aren't they are the epitome of the left wing. IE, socialist demands, anti capitalists. Anti big business, anti free market.
I beg to differ. 1. It's anything but populist. They represent a tiny fraction of the population and their behavior is seen as anti American by middle America. 2 Sure they are: Emphasizing peace with near a 1000 arrested. 3. they are being supported by the Unions, Liberals, and far left. The Unions and far left are pretty strong supporters of the Democrats.
You have to remember that the mainstream media is ultra left so as long as they can treat the protesters as anti capitalistic and the conservatives/Tea Party as racist/extremist even though their goals are similar they back one and vilify the other. They have even gone so far as to make up stories about Tea Party demonstrations which have always been peaceful and non racist. That alone makes me lean toward their view and away groups with near a 1000 arrested and their supporters. These are the things that make me vote against the Democrats. Small government, minimal regulation, and the free market. There are those who worry about the big corporations. I worry about people like Soros who's stated goal is to take down the system and he's backing the demonstrators as are the unions and socialists. OTOH I don't think it's the corporations have become too big, but rather government/politicians are too heavily involved with the corporations. If the corporations, even though large remained completely private, sink or swim there would be less likely hood of the corporate cronyism/graft and corruption. Politicians as well as higher ranking officers in agencies such as the EPA and FCC know they have a job waiting for them in corporate America the second they leave government. They sets the stage for them preparing things for the industry while they are still in the government so they'll have a cushy job waiting. There is no waiting period so they can set up their new job while still on the government payroll and setting favorable regulations for that company when they take over.
Consultant is an invention of big business to underpay... ?? I found consulting pays very well. When I retired I could have gone back to the same job, in the same office, doing exactly what I did the day before "at considerably more pay" as a consultant. Yes, I would have had to pay my own expenses but I could bill them. Thing is that going on the market as a consultant and making considerably more take home pay, I could set my contracts or rather negotiate them. I could work as many hours as I wanted. Sure you can look only at the negatives and then make them come true, but consulting does not mean you have have to be gone 3 weeks out of 4, it does not mean you must work round the clock. Often it may mean you don't even have to travel much. As I said, I could have gone back to my old office the day after I retired, doing the same thing I had been doing, but for a lot more take home pay and I had a whole 5 mile drive to work. OTOH I was looking into a different job where purchasing a relatively fast airplane with long range was economically feasible. I would have worked out the three year contract, sold the plane and been money ahead. The economic down turn has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and everything to do with people living beyond their means (running the housing bubble up) as well as government intervention into private business requiring companies to make loans without being able to make ability to pay a requirement. It has to do with adding regulations that cost many thousands of dollars to comply. It has to do with a constantly changing regulatory environment leaving businesses afraid to invest or hire. It also has to do with politicians lying about the status of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the previous administration. There are many reasons for the current economic situation, but none of them are due to the rich few compared to the average wage earner, but it sounds good to those not understanding economics, and it sounds very good to those jealous of the rich and begrudging them of their money. I'm not rich and I could care less that some one makes many times my income. I'm able to live my life in the style I like. Sure I'd like a bit more, but were I younger I'd also be willing to work for it.
Agreed. They would be defeating the reason for the LLC in the first place, however most of these things are not legally deductible as business expenses. Second homes, boats, cars... Exceptions would be cars, and airplanes needed for transportation. If you are large enough and cover enough territory then the aircraft expenses are valid and deductible. I could double the number of locations in a week with my own airplane compared to going commercial. However there is another catch that those not in business don't realize about LLCs. In many instances if you do not show "any profit" for three years it gets listed as a hobby and all of the income is taxable. You can't just create an LLC and expect it to be a tax saver from then on. IOW you can't just use it to just keep buying things to live the "good life"and expense them legally.. the amount of "red tape" for acquisitions is phenomenal I ran an LLC on the side about 25 years ago. It was simple to do and cost a couple hundred dollars in fees.. I couldn't afford the same business at present due to all the new regulations. The consulting I could still do, but I retired so I don't have to work those kind of hours. That's mainly travel expenses and as long as you don't take your family with you the book keeping is fairly simple.
As a programmer I can set up a business, I can consult, I can hire programmers. IF OTOH I worked for IBM I am not allowed to do that for some time after employment. I have served as a consultant and it was well after 86. Unless you worked for IBM recently you can start up your own business. There are many out there doing it at present.
Although things have changed somewhat, I didn't earn my degree until age 50 which is when I started on my masters. I've found that desired skill sets vary not only from company to company but even from location to location. If you have the skill set they want "generally" you will get hired, BUT and it's a big but... It seems contradictory as companies want workers who will be loyal and work their way up the ladder however now days the norm is to change jobs at least twice or three times during a career. They want a skilled IT person on one hand and on the other they want one who is going to be ambitious enough to move up the ladder which often means about the time you really become proficient you move up the ladder and into something else. Unless they are exceptional that route is not open to the older IT person as they will be ready to retire in a relatively short time. Attitudes toward older workers also tend to be some what geographic and even political. Older workers tend to be more conservative than younger and that seems to play a part geographically. Seems strange I know, but I've seen political biases play a large part in hiring. Also programming is "generally" considered a younger person's work. IE some one just out of school, while most will move onto more advanced work as they age such as project management. Again, it varies widely geographically and from company to company. It may be necessary to move a considerable distance to find some one looking for your skill set. Which reminds me, often workers end up too specialized and with too narrow a skill set which limits their saleability in the marketplace. My field and degree are in CS *but* like many corporations, I consider programming as "grunt work" unless it's for one of my own projects. I had requests *from* companies to turn in applications after earning my BS in CS while just starting on my Masters and I was in my early 50's. The Japanese have a whole different philosophical outlook and work ethic. It's more than just honoring their elders. They view age as an accumulation of wisdom gathered through hard work and study over the years. It's not just working a 9 to 5 job and then going home to vegetate in front of the TV with a beer. When I was working on my Bachelors the comment came up in one class that today's US workers were not as "success oriented" as earlier generations. Out of 40 of us only 3 even knew what the instructor meant by "success oriented". Every one else thought it just meant being a success.
Every large corporation that I know of including hospitals are still using XP or an incarnation of XP. I use Win 7 and like it, particularly after having tried Vista and went back to XP. However...Although there are some specific pluses for the cloud and many things work well in the cloud, but I think we will eventually find the cloud to be one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made in computing. It basically opens up your data to any agency that want's to look at it and without you ever knowing. A hack at the wrong place can take down large numbers of users and it puts critical data in more centralized locations making it much more attractive to hackers. I worked in FDA Validated systems that required you have all your data, software, and hardware within your immediate control which would have eliminated the use of the cloud. Even network hardware had to be documented and serial numbers recorded. Any time any piece of hardware was changed it had to be revalidated. Can you imagine being able to track everything in the cloud, or those providing the services would be willing to go through the validation process.
The "PC" which to most of us is any stand alone computer will be around for a long time to come. I still purchase new equipment using vacuum tubes albeit high powered RF amps. So many keep touting the cloud and I think today's perception of the cloud is going to cause a lot of regret. Putting you personal information on some one's servers where they, the govt, and possibly any one else can see without you knowing. Being a retired CS professional I see the cloud as *potentially* one of the most dangerous facets that have developed within computing. Certainly there aspects of it that are very handy, cost saving, and time saving, but I think it's being used for far more than is safe.
I'm amazed that the simple system using Windows even passed the FDA validation tests. It would not have passed a simple FDA network validation if there is any chance that a signal could interfere with the operation. I was a project manager for implementing Laboratory Information Management Systems, better known as LIMS and we would have had a problem using wireless devices just to pass data from testing. If another wireless device on the same frequency or close to it could block or interfere is would have failed.
Frost had it right. Each and every decision we make will in some way effect the rest of our lives, even though they may be a simple as a fork in the road, they may have a significant impact later on as did EOF.
You are correct in that this is not a problem unique to the Democrats which has made the Republicans some what hypocritical. They were once the party for small government, only the influence of the Tea Partiers saying enough is enough have they returned (most likely some what reluctant ) to the original stance. Still, the current administration has spend more and put us farther in debt than all other administrations combined. So they have carried it to quite an extreme.
SS is not simply, you pay in and get your money back when you retire. You pay a percentage of what you make into a fund. Based on what you paid in over your highest 35 years averaged and multiplied by a formula (that changes) you come up with your SS payments. Typically most will take out substantially more than what they put in. So it takes more people paying in than taking out, but we don't have that happening. Add to that, the govt TOOK the money from the SS fund and spent it for other things. About the only thing left in the SS fund are a bunch of IOUs so they have to pull the money from the general fund to cash in the IOUs. One answer is to raise the retirement age. That will both delay taking out the money and shorten the time the money is taken out. Had the money been invested in the market which has had a historical average gain between 10 and 11% per year rather than setting in an account that had to be administered which cost money (IE lost value) most of us would be millionaires and the account would be overflowing. Using the rule of 76, at 10% average your money would have doubled roughly every 7 years and over 35 years it would have doubled 5 times. Just the first 4,000 would have been worth roughly $128,000 but one year later the second 4,000 would have also doubled to put you at 256,000 plus. Actually just the money in the first 5 years would have made you a millionaire by retirement. Just look up Social Security on Google. SS was *BASED* on the premise that the work force would continue to grow and it was based on an average life span far less than what is now average. For those born in 1940 and into retirement now, the average lifespan for a white male was 62.1 and female was 66.6. The expected life span of those now entering, or hoping to enter the work force are (born in 1990) was 72.7 and 79.4. So we have more people drawing more from an account, living considerably longer than what the system was based on, and with far fewer paying into the system than was planned.
Yet although they want them, they overwhelmingly do not want taxes raised. Entitlements have to be lowered or eliminated although that will have to be done over time and slowly. The big problem with SS is they changed it from it's original scope to cover all workers, making it into a giant Ponzi scheme. IOW it only would work as long as there were enough *new* participants to pay for those who were retiring. Many of us were suckered into planning our retirements with that SS check in mind. It's not enough to retire on by itself, but meant you didn't have to lay away/invest as much. All of us, or at least most would have been far better off had that money went into the market. The market would have been much more healthy and we would have had a lot more money. "It's possible" t he economy would not be in the mess it's in now even with the housing slump which might not have existed. Of course that was brought on by the govt requiring loan institutions no make ability to pay a requirement for a housing loan. But at-any-rate, with millions of workers planned their retirements with SS being a part of it, Just removing SS would create a disaster. OTOH slowly phasing it out, or at least back to what it was originally would save a lot and keep the program solvent. A couple nights ago, CNN was saying that the people wanted the tax hikes yet they ignored their own poll where a substantial majority said they did NOT want tax hikes.
Again, The Tea Party (No I'm still not a member) is for following the Constitution. Except for the conservatism they are much like the Libertarians. They are demanding we/The government follow the constitution. The situations above should be credited to the Progressives and Liberals who were behind them, not the conservatives. Another point, if the debt limit is not raised we have enough money coming in every month to pay: 1. The interest on the National Debt (IOW service the debt), 2. pay the Military, 3 Pay Social Security, and other entitlements and still have money left over. What we would not have is money to pay the bloated government created by Obama and Bush. It would be time to lay off a *lot* over government employees who weren't needed in the first place. Of course as The Fed under Obama will prioritize who gets paid I'd lay odds on the money being divided between Obama's supporters in the govt. At that point we'd truly see who Obama supports and who he doesn't.
Baloney. The Tea Party (No I'm not a member) is a group of people who are for small government and demand the government, like the rest of us, keep a budget (they haven't had one in two years) and stick to it without the deficit spending. Only Congress has the power to borrow money. The 14th amendment does not give Obama the power to change the debt limit but straying from the constitution has not bothered him before. Obama has raised the debt more than all other presidents combined. To quote others, "We have a spending problem, not an income problem". When he came into office he could blame Bush and rightly so, but now it's his spending problem created by him and his wars created and expanded by him including the war that isn't a war. He wants to tax the rich, but the top 5% pay well over 50% of taxes while the bottom 50% pay none so the rich are already supporting more than half the country. If they taxed that top 5% at 100% they still wouldn't have enough to cover Obama's spending. For those who take the time to look, that taxing starts at either 200 or 250 thousand dollars which would include most small businesses and they are the ones who do most of the hiring. They aren't hiring because of the mass of regulations that have been heaped on them and the uncertainty for what they can expect in the future. Student loans? They now cost twice as much since being taken over by the government and removed from private enterprise. Health care? It'll be less accessible and more expensive instead of increasing accessibility and lowering costs. BTW the lines were busy, but not with the message Obama wanted. The vast majority were for holding the line and not raising the debt limit. The Republicans (No I'm not one of them either) have come up with several plans including "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which Obama Vetoed. He complains they are doing nothing, yet it's Obama who has not come up with one single plan (Including a budget in the last two years). He even shot down Reid's plan when Reid and Boehner were close to being in agreement. He complains about the Republicans not doing anything and moves the goals when they do. If there is a shut down, it's entirely up to the Obama and the Fed as to who gets paid and who doesn't as they are the ones who do the prioritizing. In the end it is Obama's responsibility as it is he who has refused to budge on key issues, not the Republicans or Democrats although the Senate has done less than any other senate in (I believe) the last 100 years. They've reportedly voted on only 15 bills in this last session. I actually believe that Obama wants us to not only fail to agree on the debt ceiling which BTW does not cause a default, but he want's a default. He's said in the past that the US should be on equal footing with "other" third world countries" and views the US as a neo colonial empire.
Often in a large corporation code may end up being used at many sites around the world and have to interface with other programs. Other programmers are likely to have to write programs that work with the original code and may even be incorporated into the original software. Without internal documentation they can take many times longer to write due to the shortsightedness of the original programmer. Writing a program to do one thing, or a piece of science is fine *IF* there is no likelihood of that software ever being enhanced or integrated with or into other software. I spent months deciphering undocumented code written by people who thought they knew how to code. To give them credit the code did do what they wanted, but there were major problems when it had to interface with a commercial program, Unfortunately the code was written by those located far up the food chain and word was, "It will not be changed" as the whole corporation used it. My only comment was "It will, sooner or later. Some years later the whole corporation went to a commercial database. They had to assign a team to convert the data and thought they'd simply export the original data into a spreadsheet and then import it into the new system. Unfortunately when they tried this they ended up with hundreds of thousands of non unique records. My guess would be it cost them a minimum of several million dollars to do something that would have only taken minutes had the original program been written following good programming practices... IOW Non professional programmers such as engineers and professionals in other fields that learn how to write a program approach from an entirely different perspective. What they do, works... usually, more or less, but they write to do a specific job, period with no thought as to future use of the code. They rarely follow good programming practices, write spaghetti code... lack of documentation, ... Earlier I saw a comment about not having time to do all that which is not normally considered a valid excuse, but a programmer in that field would be able to write good code that would do the job, be adaptable, do it faster, AND once finished others would be able to follow and understand the code. To top it off the programmer would likely get the job done in far less time.
NetFlix had a sweetheart deal with the studios that gave the studios second thoughts soon after. It was inevitable that their costs would go up substantially as soon as the contracts were renewed. However it's also inevitable that much of the free or inexpensive videos and programs are likely to disappear in the not too distant future. Depending on the channel, Adds (and channel logos) are any thing from a nuisance to intolerable. Often channels will put a crawler across the bottom that completely renders text associated with the image unreadable. Sci-Fi and Weather channels are particularly bad, but many others are close behind. Even subscription movie channels have logos and adds, so NetFlix doesn't look all that bad and they have premium content at a fraction of the cost of cable or satellite. However even with high speed broad band that is many times faster than needed even for HD videos, I often find pixelization, breakups, and pauses when viewing streaming. I've never found the problem to be at either end but some where in the middle using tracrt. The same program/movie can be downloaded in a fraction of the time and played with no problems so the speed has to be varying while streaming. It could also be some sort of interference I'd much prefer the ability to download movies or programs to watch for a week or two before pitching them as there are few I'd want to purchase, but I also find streaming to be rather intolerant of interruptions where I may have to leave for an hour or so.
Most adults do not have much of a choice if they have to travel in their work. I used to travel between the Mid West and East Coast quite often for business. Do you think I could have told my boss, I'll take an extra day and drive, or ride the buss? How about 3 extra days to the West Coast instead of half a day? I'd have been looking for a job in short order. Time is money and most of the biz-jets are not luxury accommodations, but just privately owned jets about as fancy inside as the airborne coach class cattle cars. We could hit 2 or 3 locations East of the Mississippi in one day although 3 would have been pushing it and made for a very long day. With check in times, flying through hubs, and other commercial delays. Commercial I could expect to make one useful stop and maybe get to the location for the next day. As to the back of the hand in pat downs. I saw a video the other night of a woman being patted down. The agent used the back of her hand, but rolled it so at one point she had the woman's breast cupped in her hand. At the speed she was moving it appeared she was not enjoying the pat down any more than the passenger, but still...
I tried Chrome and although fast I didn't like the organization. After a week I went back to Firefox...memory leaks and all. Although it's not the fastest, I've not found Firefox bloated, but I don't install a lot of addons. Maybe I should give it another try.
Trashy novels were mentioned earlier. One thing you learn by reading a lot and that's the "old masters" were also "dirty old men":-)) Many of those masterpieces are just as raunchy as late night satellite or cable TV.
I would disagree almost completely with the previous statement. The movie leaves much out and only presents the visual representation. You are left to "infer" the character's background and why they respond the way they do. Some movies will give a bit of insight into the main characters, or even specific characters, but they have neither time no budget to treat the characters psychological backgrounds more than superficially. A book has to give you much more background than the movie. Lost? Another reality show. I've done a lot of things in my life and find reality shows to be boring in the extreme. I've never been able to stay interested for more than a show or two at most, despite how much "eye candy" they present. I can not think of one show on the major networks I've found interesting. In the end the book, or even article requires the reader's brain to do a lot more work than just viewing a video. I find that when reading the news, I skip the video clips and only check out the textual presentations. I do that with finances as well. I have seen a definite shift away from reading in my many years, yet I tend to be an early adopter when it comes to tech. I like e-books, but see a format other than one that can be read on computer or any e-book as completely unnecessary. The multiple formats only guarantee that the life of an e-book is likely to be short lived. I see the lack of reading for learnings sake just as I see today's entitlement society. They may want it but are unwilling to work for it.