If you are really planning on continuing the police state that we already are increasingly living in, I plan to travel. THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
Just where are you planning on going? Really?
It's not 1498 anymore. You can't just hop on a boat with a group of disgruntled people with views similar to yours, find (or conquer) some land and set up a country.
On today's Earth, there is not one single piece of land left that isn't claimed by some government or another. Well okay, maybe perhaps the polar regions but I seriously doubt you'll get too many people (except perhaps some polar biologists) who'd want to hang out with the penguins or polar bears.
That means you're emigrating to another country. Question is, which one? Unless you speak a language other than English, your choices are going to be very limited. I don't know if you've noticed this but there's been an unsettling trend in recent years for English speaking countries, hell even the non-English speaking ones, to be on the fast track to curtail or limit the freedoms and liberties our parents and grandparents once enjoyed.
Sure, some of the countries on this track are moving slower than others, so you might have a comfortable enough life for a while. Chances are though, you'd be looking to move again in a few years.
Now you could stay in your country and try to fix things. Of course, unless your very rich, or very well connected (or even better, both) you probably won't have much luck doing anything other than making token changes that don't mean much.
Now assuming you aren't *very* rich and *very* well connected, if you do go to the trouble of trying to make life better for your fellow citizens you're going to get yourself on a lot of "no *insert activity here*" listings and probably some extra harassment from the agents of your elected officials. Perhaps a bit of extra scrutiny at tax time; audit candidates are all chosen at random right. Or maybe you'll have some deep dark secret you'd really rather not have exposed to the world suddenly be the major headline on CNN.
Still, who knows, you might just be the person who can convince the American "gun nuts" to actually uphold that whole 2nd Amendment thing they keep harping on and on about. You know, the part they always seem to forget when talking about their "rights". The part where they are entitled to keep their guns so long as when the government tries to take away everyones freedom like this, they would forcibly stop them.
But I digress, that's all off topic. Now, where was I?
I know a lot of parents don't like to think of this, but if you do a simple Google search (I used 'Average Puberty Age') you will find a lot of research that indicates puberty has been starting at younger and younger ages. It is not at all uncommon now to see girls (and boys too) as young as 9 starting puberty, with many having what most would consider "adult" features between two and five years later.
I've seen pictures of co-workers, family, etc... and even though they were 15-16 when the pictures were taken, they looked like kids. Unlike these days where it's not at all uncommon to find out the 20-25 year old woman you've spent the last ten minutes hitting on, ends up being a 15 year old high school girl.
It's even scarier when you realize these girls (boys too), along with the original posters step-daughter in a few years, can and will probably get into bars or other adult venues without being carded (my sister's friends used to do this all the time).
So go easy on the original poster, it can't be easy raising an eleven year old girl trapped in a 16 year olds body. That being said, she's a child trapped in a "woman's" body, so I can't imagine it being too easy on her either.
Yes, and let's not forget once you do finally manage to get the thing open there's this magical tape covering all exposed edges of the case inside keeping you from actually opening it.
You'd think tape would be easy to get off, but someone must have spent a small fortune engineering this stuff, for simply trying to rip it results in a small thin strip that sticks to your fingers, clothes and anything else within a five foot radius of the package.
Finally, after spending ten minutes wrestling with the stupid DVD case, you pop the thing in and then get stuck watching the stupid company logo, FBI screens (don't copy now, yah-hear) and frelling commercials for movies that have long since left the cinema!!!!! Try as I might, the stupid pop up on the screen keeps telling me that fast-forward, menu, or any other damned button is "Not a valid option at this time."
So now I'm nursing cuts from the packaging, bits of tape stuck to my bleeding fingers, mashing buttons trying to watch the fracking movie, finally reaching the menu only to discover quality control wasn't quite up to snuff the day my disc was packaged. Somehow they managed to silk screen the Widescreen label on a Fullframe version of the film and then stick it in a clearly labeled Widescreen box.
And then they have the nerve to wonder why people download this shit! Oh well, at least I get to take out my frustration on the returns guy at Costco.;-)
I find it funny to think that just because a person spent what amounts to 1/4 of their life in school to become a doctor, is simply doing it for the money. Particularly when being a doctor is among one of the most difficult professions to get into.
The 20 plus years a person has to spend in school to learn the craft, all the testing, the sleepless nights and grueling schedules. Not to mention the sheer cost of actually going to medical school along with the payback of the loan money in the end; to think they're only doing it for the money is naive.
Oh sure, I'm not stupid, I know some people foolishly put themselves through hell for the sake of the money. Let's face it, doctors make piles of cash. But on the other side of the coin, there are other, much simpler ways for highly intelligent people (which you'd have to be if you actually graduated and became a doctor) to make piles of cash in a much faster time span.
No, it can't simply be possible that people become doctors and put up with all the intensity and hard work because they have a natural desire to help people.
It's great that your relative was able to afford the 100,000 cost for his life saving surgery. I am truly happy for you that your relative is alive and well and got the best care possible for him. I just don't see how much of a life he's going to have though, what with the need to take on extra hours at work or even an extra job just to pay off the medical bills. Sure, he's alive but at what costs to living his actual life.
Contrast that with the Canadian way of doing things. Every single citizen can walk into any hospital in the country and be certain someone will look at them and run tests. If the Doctors find anything life threatening that puts you in imminent danger of dying, you're going to get taken care of right away. However, if they find something potentially life threatening, but you aren't going to die right away, you get to go on the waiting list.
This of course is where our health care system gets all it's "bad" press. People whining because it can be uncomfortable and the negative effects on their lifestyle while waiting to be treated. While Doctors here understand this, because everyone is covered for health care and the resources are finite they need to prioritize care. Doctors assess your condition to determine how dangerous it is and when you need life saving treatment, then they prioritize the waiting list based on that. Minor conditions you will wait quite a while to be treated for as they are often managed quite well with drugs and/or therapy until you have your surgery.
Major conditions will usually get you in faster, and if your condition changes so you are now in imminent danger of dying, you get bumped to the top of the list.
Sure, my taxes are probably a bit higher than yours to pay for our universal health care and I know I will likely be uncomfortable waiting to be treated should I need it. What I do know is that despite all the waiting, I'll eventually get taken care of and be able to go back to my life. What's even more comforting to know is I won't have to potentially lose my house, take on a second job, or leave behind an overwhelming debt for my family. For that kind of security, I don't mind popping a few extra pain pills or enduring a few extra tests.
I would fully expect, should someone ever figure out how to get replicators to work (which I hope they do), the "materialism" or "keeping up with the Joneses" our current society suffers from would pretty much disappear. Much of our current materialism is based on the idea that owning stuff determines how successful you are. Or just in case I "need" something, I have to own it. If I don't own it, I can't ever use it. I *need* to buy said item (whatever it is) and keep it around my house and even though I might only ever use it once I keep it around anyway just in case I might need it someday. When I look at my neighbors stuff and see something neat or expensive they have, it is easy to let my mind be fooled into thinking I *might* have a need for it too and that I have to own one. We tend to base our image of ourselves on the idea that the more stuff owned and the more expensive it is, the more "successful" we are.
I admit, I get caught up in the trap sometimes too.
But with replication technology that all goes away. When your food, shelter and material needs are just as easily replicated as your neighbors, the accumulation of "stuff" as a measure of personal success becomes pointless. Why would you keep a monster DVD collection when you could just as easily walk over to your replication terminal and ask for a copy of any movie you can think of. Then after you've watched it, recycle it back into the system knowing full well you could re-replicate it should you want to watch it again.
With everyone being on an equal footing economically, there would no longer be a need to keep up with the Joneses. I'd be willing to bet that outside of home decor, most people wouldn't bother keeping a lot of "stuff" around.
If anything can be duplicated cheaply people will only do the stuff they enjoy doing, but no work will be done. Society will stagnate, innovation will come to a halt, and the social consequences will be immense. Perhaps no one would go without, but I'd hardly call it utopian.
Society will flourish and innovation will reach unparalleled levels of ingenuity. Your days will be filled with activities that interest you. With your food, shelter and material needs provided, you would no longer need to work a job you hate or barely tolerate just to survive.
This is without a doubt the hardest concept for people to understand. Too many people are tied to the concept of money and like the horse wearing blinders in a race, they simply can't see any other way of living. It's alien for them to even contemplate an existence where you don't have money and are unable to understand how a society like that could possibly function. What they fail to understand is that while some people will pick a career because it pays well and they can make a lot of money to be comfortable, most people pick a career because it genuinely interests them.
I know a few mechanics, construction workers and plumbers who have those jobs not just for the money/* although they never complain about it;-) */, but also the *satisfaction* of using their hands and skills to build and fix things. My former next door neighbor who worked hard to be a nurse because he had a desire to help people. The young lady I used to work with who was working for a year to save the money she needed to finish teachers college. A woman I know is an assistant manager at a local restaurant because she's always been interested in opening her own one day and is happy to be gaining experience. One of my friends became an electrical engineer because he found the subject interesting to him. I could go on an on, but you probably have the point by now.
People have motivations for doing things beyond money. There will always be someone to do the "work" because there are always people who derive pleasure and fulfillment in knowing they are helping others.
Replication technology would free society from the mundane trappings of everyday life and open up the world of culture, education and innovation to anyone.
No longer would money or lack thereof be a determining factor in deciding your future and dreams. If you wanted to be a Doctor, you would now have just as much chance as anyone else to learn. Want to be a musician, replicate an instrument and start practicing; spend as much time as you want. Want to make a movie, look on the 'net for a group of other people with the same dream, replicate the needed materials and go make one. Maybe you want to design a new car, go ahead and do it then head down to the local "large scale" replimat and test it. Write the great Canadian (or American or *insert country of choice here*) novel. Learn to code and then write that video game you've always wanted to play; ask like minded people for help if you need it. Collaborate on the new CPU design you'll need to play your game when its finished. Exercise your artistic side and design a new outfit or use your analytical side and work on the cure for cancer.
Or don't do any of those things. Do whatever your want. That's the point. Replication technology would free you to be all you can be, to live up to your maximum potential (or less if you so chose). There is no limit to the kinds of scientific, medical or cultural enhancements people would come up with if they didn't have to spend 3/5ths of their day going through the motions simply trying to survive.
Think and use your imagination a little bit, open your mind and broaden your horizons; you'll realize there could be so much more to life than working for survival and replication technology is what we need to give us the freedom to get us there.
Fercryinoutloud, she was drinking dihydrogen monoxide!!!
Oh my... Thanks for the awesome laugh. I went to the link you provided, read through their FAQ's and other information. It took me ten minutes before my long forgotten High School Chemistry classes shook loose enough to catch the joke. I haven't laughed this hard in the longest time.
We need to either go with laws that require a low-distraction environment (no cell phones, video screens, etc) for drivers, or develop a foolproof autopilot system.
The last thing we need is more laws to try and combat this problem. What we *need* is cops and law enforcement to do their jobs. Enforce the laws we already have.
When you are driving you have but one simple yet very important job, "DRIVE SAFELY". Keep your eyes on the road, be aware of your surroundings and maintain control of your vehicle based on conditions and traffic flow.
Personally, I feel that if you're talking on your cell phone, texting, putting on your makeup or dildoing yourself (yes, I've seen a woman do that while driving) you are being incredibly reckless and should be charged with Reckless Driving. Unless your wife is giving labour in the backseat and your talking to 911, there is no phone call, text message or e-mail important enough for you to do handle while driving. If it is that important, chances are it's going to make you emotional making you even more of a danger. Pull over first.
If you don't, you should be charged with Reckless Driving. The $1,000 fine, 5 points on your licenese and kick me in the ass insurance rates for seven years will probably make you think before doing it again.
Honestly, I think cops should go after cell-phone talkers more than speeders. Often speeders just go whizzing by 15-20 KPH faster than me in their own lane. Yet I am all too often cut off by a swerving cell-phone talking twink who can't even stay in the lane let alone signal a lane change and never checks their blindspot.
When you honk the horn at them for nearly kiling you, they just flip you the bird and look at you like you're the bad driver. Frelling reckless drivers.
I seem to remember from history class that you sucessfully landed on the moon six times. I remember watching the little moon buggies roaming the surface and people playing golf. I'd go in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the whole motion sickness and sucking at math thing.
Yet now I'm supposed to believe you don't have the know-how from those six succesful tests to build a new rover or even a stationary habitat? Did no-one have the foresight to keep the original plans that you now have to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions (that could be spent sending people to the moon) on special fake moon dirt so you can spend untold billions to start the R&D process over again?
I mean let's face it. Outside of upgrades using new energy efficient technology and lighter materials, the design probably isn't going to change much from what was used in the original lunar missions.
What I find funny about the whole thing is the orignal test vehicles are *still* there! From what I remember, all the equipment was left behind to make room for the samples that were brought back. (Yes, the fuel requirements for the return trip played into it as well.) So you have SIX rovers just sitting there, pristine and untouched as if you left them there yesterday.
Why not just build a launch vehicle, or did you loose the plans for the Saturn V's too? Send a couple of people up there with replacement batteries, drive the crap out of it so it gets really dirty, then shrink wrap the whole thing for the trip home. They shouldn't be too hard to find, it's right where you parked it.
You'll save lots of time and probably money by cutting out the endless inane tests with pseudo material hoping you're right. Just go get the test vehicle that's already been exposed and guarantee you are right.
If you are procrastinating - you don't have enough to do.
I've always hated this argument. It's based on the notion that obscene overwork will somehow make you forget why you're procrastinating in the first place. Most people procrastinate because the task is so mind nubmingly boring that they'd rather take time off work to clean their house (which they'll procrastinate doing once they're home).
Assign me tasks that are actually interesting. A task I'm interested and excited to be working on I almost never have trouble completing on or even before time.
Taking on extra tasks doesn't work. Sure you're busy and working like a dog just to keep up, but you're still going to be bored. Only now you won't have the wiggle room to procrastinate and prioritize tasks, making you a bundle of nervous energy on it's way to burning out quickly.
My grandmother had 16 kids so I have many nieces, nephews and cousins. At family functions, being the "fun" uncle, I'm usually tapped to supervise and play with those kids. I can tell you with certainty, kids are unpredictable bundles of pure energy. It doesn't matter how careful you are in playing with them, you *will* unintentionaly hurt them.
Kids are pretty smart in their own way, but they don't have the same wisdom and level of understanding of the world as adults do. They *will* do things no sane adult would do, they *will* fall down, they *will* get hurt. If they ask you to play catch and they bend down to tie a shoe after you've thrown the ball, don't be shocked if the ball hits them in the head.
Obviously that wasn't what you would inteded to happen, but it did and it hurts. Now, every time their sibling pokes the bump on their head, the "Ow!" they yelp out reminds them to pay attention to their surroundings and be certain they're ready before I throw the ball.
Which, if you think about it, is the same lesson learned by the young lady in the original posting.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
I know this will probably get modded as flamebait, if it gets modded at all. But honestly, I don't see how anyone could take this quote as any kind of condemnation of homosexuals. Seriously.
I think of when this was written and how the Bible is supposedly the literal word of god. So I read the passage literally.
The status of a woman in those times was so low they were essentially little more than property. In terms of their society, it wasn't important to be truthful to women; they were mere slaves meant to birth heirs and care for them. They had little if any rights and only the men mattered.
Men on the other hand were all important, deserving and demanding of your respect. In your dealings with your fellow man it was important to be truthfull, though some types of casual lying were probably allowed. Yet if you dared to degrade another man by lying with him as you would your woman you were killed for your extreme untruthfulness and the other man was killed for the shame of being treated as a woman.
Honestly, I don't see how this could be interpreted any other way. If they *were* talking about sexual acts, they would have talked about fornication. The fact that they didn't tells me they were talking about always being truthful to men while being less truthful to their women.
While the article points out the "No Meetings" rule, I'm pretty sure that if there were a need for one, they would book it. I think what the rule means is none of the "stupid" meetings.
If you've worked in any kind of corporate environment, you'll know just what I'm talking about. The daily "status" meeting where we talk about workloads, like we all don't know how to run the reports ourselves (it's the first thing every single one of us does in the morning).
Or the project status meeting, where you get together every week to rehash the previous weeks e-mail traffic.
But in general, unless you're on a project or in some kind of managemnt position, how many meetings do you really go to?
I know Slashdot has a lot of IT workers, but let's be brutally honest. Most people in a company are front line grunts whose sole function is to process the large volumes of work the company receives. Once you learn your role, most of the work is kept and processed on the system. Seldom is contact with another team member necessary unless you have a particlarly complicated case that requires two pairs of eyes to work out.
Even if you *are* in IT, unless you're physically changing the hardware I can't see why you couldn't VPN or SSH (I think I'm missing an S here) into the system and do your work.
What I do every day is mostly e-mail based (I make/receive two to four phone calls a day) and it could be done from home, or on a beach in Cancun with Wi-Fi and a cell phone. Meeting wise, I can honestly say I've been to less than 15 productive meetings all year, with eight of those being the quarterly status reports everyone has to to go to (one for the department, one for the division).
For the option of working from home on a relaxed schedule with fewer flow killing destractions and the chance to go outside and play with my niece on a nice day while waking up at 10:00 AM; I'd make the time to go to the office 10 or 15 times a year.
People laugh when I talk about this. Some even say I'm inherently lazy (when it comes to housework I'd agree), but I'm not joking when I talk about having a Work Allergy.
Yes, you read that right. Work Allergy.
I've worked varying types of jobs. I've done the mundane general labour jobs, to working on complicated projects. It didn't matter what I did, what my work hours were, I have always felt burnt out while working. Not just your general, "Ugh, I hate this job, can't wait for the weekend." type of burnout. I'm talking the, "I'm emotionally ready to retire now and in 11,651 days I'll never need to work a day in my life ever again!" kind of burnout.
I've felt burnt out for most of my life. Been on antidepressants twice. Taking Monocor now to keep the stress of work from making my heart fly apart. Once, my Doctor forced me to quit a particularly stressful job as he was fearful I would suffer a heart attack.
The only time I've been happy as an adult? The three years I was unemployed/* I posted on this once before, I'm just too lazy to look it up. Yes I was actively looking and went on many interviews. */.
The ability to have direct control over what I did in a day was the the most freeing feeling in the world. To know that I could do what I wanted, when I wanted, and that I could stop when I got bored; I haven't ever been happier, healthier or saner. My Doctor couldn't believe the change in me.
I was fitter/* Woke up each morning at 10:00 AM, checked my online job searches, stuffed resumes into envelopes and did call backs on the ones from the week before. Worked out from 10:30 AM to 11:15 AM, cooled down by taking my envelopes to the mailbox and picking up the current paper then filled the day with whatever I wanted to do. */
More personable/* My friends and family were *very* happy about this. */
I was even able to stop taking my medication/* My Doctor was even happier about this. */.
The only downside was the lack of money and the uncertainty of how I was going to continue paying for my life. But I was having so much fun for the first time in my life that it wasn't very stressful.
I took a month off my current job recently. It was very much like those three years off. When I got back to work, no-one could believe how relaxed and energetic I was and I received many comments about all the weight I'd lost. I didn't have one panic/anxiety attack. No stress, no pounding chest pains. And I was able to stop my meds again.
I've tried different jobs, part time, relaxed schedules. It doesn't matter. Soon after starting a new job my stress goes up, the weight starts to pack on, I'm always in constant pain, I can't sleep, my chest hurts and then I need to start the meds again just to keep from having a heart attack. My mood changes, I can't focus, every conversation becomes an exercise in sarcasm.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not afraid of hard work. I work hard in every job I've ever done. I always put forth the best possible effort to ensure that my job is completed to the best of my abilities. I take pride in a job well done.
I just can't handle doing the actual work. I really wish I could retire. Having a free form, non directed unplanned day filled with things that interest me and knowing I can quit when bored would make me unbelievably happy. Unfortunately, no one will pay me for doing this, so I have to make do the best I can.
Oh well, at least I only have 11,651 days until retirement.;-)
It's nice to think that when you want to play a game, you can always turn to your friends to play.
But what happens when, like me, none of your friends are into video games? It happens, there is no rule stating your friends have to have all of the *exact* same interests you do. Since none of my friends are into gaming, it's important to me the game has some decent multi-player. It's fun to play with someone after I've finished the single player campaign.
While it's true I'm able to con my non-gaming friends or family into the odd game, it isn't often. So online multi-player really comes in handy.
Actually, I would like to see 25 years for most works (I'll get to this later), period.
Why would I say this? A lot of our ideas and inspiration come from the works that we watched, read and listened to as children. Having a 25 year limit on copyright would allow those reaching adulthood the opportunity to draw upon those works. Wouldn't you have had your novel, film, album project ready to shop around the second the copyright expired?
I know for myself, I would have.
I have ideas I think people would be interested in seeing or reading yet the current copyright term length guarantees no one will ever see or read them. My creations are inspired and draw heavily on what came before; under the current system I have no incentive to create. Assuming no further extensions are forthcoming, it is likley I will be dead or close to it before I'd be permitted to draw from the works of my childhood (born 1973).
So much for progressing the arts.
25 years makes a lot of sense to me. It's long enough to give copyright holders leverage in how their works are used, yet short enough that users of the works can look forward to expanding on them and creating their own.
The only thing that should have a shorter limit is news items and for those I think 5 years would suffice. Long enough for the particular newspaper or television station to make some money and give them their "exclusive", yet short enough for historians to get easy access to the works.
Splurge and pay for memberships to all of the adult sites that you have ever wanted to.
Do a LOT of masturbating now, before the arthritis takes away the ability.
Not to mention the pain from the chaffed, bruised and blistered skin will take your mind off the arthritis allowing you to keep on playing video games.
The guy practically gets pummeled by women. It's really dangerous and I hope they put a stop to it.
As do I.
He looks like such a nice young man with a bright future ahead of him. I would hate to see him cut down in his prime, destined for a life of misery brought on by a disabling injury from excessive on the job pummeling. To ensure his continued good health and lack of injury I humbly agree to sign a waiver of liability and offer my services as his personal stunt double.
Anyone else wondering what use this will be to "copy" people, when we can hardly even make robot walk let alone more these days?
Because this is Slashdot. While it might be fun to make android copies of Grace Park using Lego Mindstorms, those hard bricks, 90 degree angles and pointed corners make playing with her not fun. Not to mention the lube keeps shorting the damned thing out.
I can tell you that over the last 2 days (4 hours of driving) I have heard Foo Fighters' "Enough Space" 6 times out of 231 songs. Does the iPod sense higher played songs/albums/groups or is its randomness just that awful? 2GB Nano 1g
I too had the same problem with my iPod (30 gig). For some reason I kept hearing some songs more than others. Eventually I just setup a Smart Playlist called "Stuff that's seldom played". It relies on the fact that when a song is fully played through it not only ups the play count but also the Last Played Date field. With the SmartPlaylist I have it set with three conditions:
1) Last Played field does not have a date that ocurred in the last 5 days. 2) Genre does not equal "Postcast"./* This is nice so that you don't get some half hour news-cast or something, unless you want that:-) */ 3) Time is less than 40:00./* This relates to the length of the song. I like the mega extended versions of some songs just fine, but not while I'm driving. */
I click the "Limit to" checkbox and set it to 250 Songs/* "items" */ selected at Random, as well as the Live Updating box so that if I don't sync my iPod for a few days it keeps adding songs currently on the iPod to the list to be played.
You could tailor this to your 2 Gig nano by changhing the Last Played to 2 days along while setting "Limit to" for a size like 1850 MB or something that can fill the 2 gig iPod and leaving live update of the playlist on. Depending on the length of your songs, this *should* put about a day and a halfs worth of music on your iPod. Since you're unlikley to listen to it for 24 hours straight, you shouldn't run into problems with this setup.
A nice this about this is if you have a music library larger than 2 gigs, when you sync your iPod it should automatically swap out the songs that don't meet the SmartPlaylists conditions, replacing them with ones that do.
I've been using this setup for about a month now and the only time I hear the same song more than once every 5 days is when it's on multiple "Greatest Hits" Albums.;-)
When little Billy or Janey says, "Mommy, Daddy, where do babies come from." is the time to start. No, you will *not* go into a complete fully detailed account of sexual reproduction, but you *should* be the grown up and at least be honest and tell them in terms they will understand.
When I was 4 I asked that question. Mom pulled out the old encyclopedia Britannica and turned it to the anatomy section. They had a whole section of drawn cutaway pictures of the human body. She pointed to the pregnant woman and showed me where babies came from. I was four, I didn't need to know about penises, sperm, eggs, fallopian tubes or menstral cycles. I just wanted to know where babies came from, she showed me and that was that.
From that point on, my parents *always* made it clear that anytime I had questions about babies or my body I could go to them. Had my Mom not been so frank with me as a child and given me a kiddie answer instead, I don't think I would have gone to my parents with the more "interesting" questions as a teenager.
I eventually learned all about the "birds and the bees" (thanks Britannica) as I got older and knew a *lot* more than the kids in the sex-ed classes that were mandatory in 7th grade. Mom did all the science and biology information (the aforementionted penises, sperm, fallopian tubes, menstral cycles, diseases, contraceptives, etc..) while Dad covered the emotional maturity and responsibility versus "feels good" type questions.
They were frank, candid and not the least bit judgemental. I honestly could and did ask them things most kids would *never* ask their parents. When I asked about behaviours or activities I was always given the pro's and con's and left to decide for myself. I am absolutley greatful for their maturity towards sex as the knowledge they imparted allowed me to make fully informed decisions about my own sex life.
I spent hours and hours playing Earth Orbit Stations as a kid.
It's a very hard game to describe as there was so much to it, but in essence you were given command to build a space station and make it profitable. You had a number of missions to complete before a set time, all the while your friends were *also* trying to complete the missions before you! You had to learn to balance setting station modules for research, profit, or maintaining the station.
The game would throw in little *snags* to mix things up, and if you wanted a *real* challenge you could turn on "component scheduling" where you would have to plan your station in your head, schedule the parts on shuttle launches and then put the thing together as the parts arrived. This game was under-rated but incredibly fun.
If they port this to the Wii, I'm going from a potential buy to a buy for sure.
1) Much of your retirement savings is tax sheltered/deferred. Putting 15% of 33,500 into a retirement account does not mean you only have 85% of 33,500 left. It comes out pre-tax. Putting 15% of your net away reduces your gross take by about 10% (depending on tax bracket)
This is true only if you're lucky enough to have a job that offers pension benefits where they will directly deposit and match the amount you specify into an RRSP using before tax dollars. If you're like the rest of us, you're going to have to apply the funds to you retirement savings plan yourself *after* the taxes have already come off the money, waiting until tax time (usually in February) to inform the government how much you put into you RRSP.
*Then* you get the tax money back, and you're a fool if you don't put that money straight back into your RRSP to increase your retirement savings and tax return for the next year. Essentially that money is gone, earmarked for your retirement, and cannot be included as part of your standard of living
2) Your rainy day fund does not need to continue in perpetuity. You only need to save until you reach 90% of 33,500 (actually less because of #1 above)
It's a rainy day fund. While it's main purpose is to shelter you should you loose your job, it does have other uses. Does your car never break down/need replacing? Have to buy a new bed for the kids because they've outgrown the last one? You'll need a good sized down-payment for your house, and while you can de-register your RRSP tax-free if you pay it back in 15 years, you will probably have to dip into that rainy-day fund to furnish your home.
As your wages go up, the need for extra savings goes up. Not to mention that at 10% a year, even with interest, it's going to take 8 years or so to reach your 90% goal. Assuming you don't use it for furnishings, fixing your car and other rainy day events. Simply put, you're going to touch it more than you think, meaning you will need to continue saving 10% of your take home each year.
3) Your food estimates are ridiculous. I feed a family of 5 healthy food for under $500/month.
Like I said, the numbers were an estimate and would fluctuate based on your geographic location. It is a well known fact that American's typically have a lower cost on foodstuffs than in Canada. It is not at all uncommon here to go the the grocers, walk out with 50+ dollars in food and have it last only a few days. And *that's* for a single person. My typical weekly expenses for foodstuffs, even assuming I don't eat out at all, is still over $100.00 a week.
Now I will concede that as you increase the number of people in your household you will probably buy more in bulk thereby saving you money. In the beginning with only one or two people, buying in bulk doesn't make much sense as the food will go bad before you get a chance to eat it. You will also eat out more as you want to avoid the hassle of cooking, cleaning and grocery shopping (takes a lot of time and is often worth the minimal increase in cost to get that time back).
4) Women do NOT require 2 dates a week every week. You sound kind of bitter on the women front. I don't know ANYBODY who maintains that sort of relationship - ESPECIALLY once you have kids.
No, obviously the nature of the relationship changes once you get married and have kids. You're not going to go out nearly as much, still, there is something to be said for sending the kids off to a babysitter/relative for an evening once in a while and going out.
I'm not disputing life changes after you're married with kids, I'm talking about the *building* of the relationship.
Most men don't just meet a girl, go on a first date, immediately hook up, get married and pop a few kids. You need to get to know them first, spend time with them, figure out if you can handle the quirks in their personality, l
I can understand why you call Bullshit. As I said in my original post it was an *average* and your milage may vary depending on your geographic location or country. Myself I live in Canada, I guess I should have included that in my original post, and our standard of living is higher here than in most American states. Still, you've asked for a more detailed breakdown, so here we go.
Starting with the single guy living alone. I stated you needed 33,500 minimum to have a decent standard of living.
Any good financial planner will tell you two things. 1) You need to save a *minimum* of 25% of your gross earnings each year if you expect to retire and live for 15-20 years at your current standard of living. 2) Your cash on hand savings should be equal to 3-6 months of your current wages in case you loose your job. Since taxes change from state to state and province to province I'll base my numbers on the net 33,500 above.
Let's assume you're a young guy and want to defer some of that until later, you're only going to save 15%.
15% of 33,500 is 5,025.00 saved for retirement each year.
Now let me clarify, I personally put away only 10% of each pay for this purpose as I make considerably less than the 33,500 I mention above. I simply don't have enough after taxes (an no, I'm not going to say what it is, I don't need some troll-bot getting a hold of my annual salary information so I get even more spam) to cover the amount above.
To satisfy condition 2 I try to put away 10% of my yearly pay (I don't always suceed, sacrifices sometimes need to be made). I'll use the 33,500 above as a baseline.
10% of 33,500 is 3,350.00
Chances are if you're living alone, you've just started out. So you're going to rent for a few years. I wouldn't recommend this for more than that as most mortgages on three bedroom houses can be comparable to rent on the same, why throw your money away when it could be invested? Still, as I'd said you're going to probably be living alone in a rented apartment for the first few years.
Rent in a decent well maintained all inclusive (heat, hydro, water) one bedroom apartment in a nice neighborhood is going to cost anywhere from 650 to 850 with the average being 750 per month.
Rent at 750 per month equals 9,000.00
Food costs are enormous. Eating healthy simply costs a lot of money. Fruits, vegetables, meats (all types), grains and milk products all cost quite a bit money. You can only live on ramen noodles and cans of tuna for so long before doing damage to yourself. To be healthy, you need to eat healthy. The problem is healthy is expensive. For myself it is not at all uncommon to spend upwards of 150.00 per week for food, I know some people with special dietary requirements that are over 200.00. Still we'll go with the 150.00.
150.00 per week at 52 weeks a year is 7,800.00
Before we go on, lets' add up what we have so far.
Retirement Savings: 5,025.00 Rainy Day Savings: 3,350.00 Rent: 9,000.00 Food Costs: 7,800.00 Total Costs so far: 25,175.00 Remaining Cash to Play with: 33,500.00 - 25,175.00 = 8,325.00
Let's continue with some of the basics, I'll use what I pay as a basis, you can change these numbers if you desire. Phone: 30.00 x 12 = 360.00 Internet: 50.00 x 12 = 600.00 Entertainment (spending time with friends, whatever): 50 x 52 = 2,600.00 Total here: 3,560.00 Total remaining: 8,325.00 - 3,560.00 = 4,765.00
Girlfriend - This is where it gets interesting, most women hate being boiled down to a cost but what they need to realize is that all the fun things they like to do with us does cost money, if I'm going to make my retirement goals and life goals I need to budget for dates just like I do anything else.
Your milage may vary, but I have found on average a date will cost $75.00. Yes, some will be cheaper, but a woman will only go on so many cheap "let's go get an ice cream and go for a walk and talk" dates before she thinks "he's a cheapskate" and t
Slashdot Mirror
Just where are you planning on going? Really?
It's not 1498 anymore. You can't just hop on a boat with a group of disgruntled people with views similar to yours, find (or conquer) some land and set up a country.
On today's Earth, there is not one single piece of land left that isn't claimed by some government or another. Well okay, maybe perhaps the polar regions but I seriously doubt you'll get too many people (except perhaps some polar biologists) who'd want to hang out with the penguins or polar bears.
That means you're emigrating to another country. Question is, which one? Unless you speak a language other than English, your choices are going to be very limited. I don't know if you've noticed this but there's been an unsettling trend in recent years for English speaking countries, hell even the non-English speaking ones, to be on the fast track to curtail or limit the freedoms and liberties our parents and grandparents once enjoyed.
Sure, some of the countries on this track are moving slower than others, so you might have a comfortable enough life for a while. Chances are though, you'd be looking to move again in a few years.
Now you could stay in your country and try to fix things. Of course, unless your very rich, or very well connected (or even better, both) you probably won't have much luck doing anything other than making token changes that don't mean much.
Now assuming you aren't *very* rich and *very* well connected, if you do go to the trouble of trying to make life better for your fellow citizens you're going to get yourself on a lot of "no *insert activity here*" listings and probably some extra harassment from the agents of your elected officials. Perhaps a bit of extra scrutiny at tax time; audit candidates are all chosen at random right. Or maybe you'll have some deep dark secret you'd really rather not have exposed to the world suddenly be the major headline on CNN.
Still, who knows, you might just be the person who can convince the American "gun nuts" to actually uphold that whole 2nd Amendment thing they keep harping on and on about. You know, the part they always seem to forget when talking about their "rights". The part where they are entitled to keep their guns so long as when the government tries to take away everyones freedom like this, they would forcibly stop them.
But I digress, that's all off topic. Now, where was I?
Oh yes, just where do you plan on going? Really?
Pete...
I know a lot of parents don't like to think of this, but if you do a simple Google search (I used 'Average Puberty Age') you will find a lot of research that indicates puberty has been starting at younger and younger ages. It is not at all uncommon now to see girls (and boys too) as young as 9 starting puberty, with many having what most would consider "adult" features between two and five years later.
I've seen pictures of co-workers, family, etc... and even though they were 15-16 when the pictures were taken, they looked like kids. Unlike these days where it's not at all uncommon to find out the 20-25 year old woman you've spent the last ten minutes hitting on, ends up being a 15 year old high school girl.
It's even scarier when you realize these girls (boys too), along with the original posters step-daughter in a few years, can and will probably get into bars or other adult venues without being carded (my sister's friends used to do this all the time).
So go easy on the original poster, it can't be easy raising an eleven year old girl trapped in a 16 year olds body. That being said, she's a child trapped in a "woman's" body, so I can't imagine it being too easy on her either.
Pete...
Yes, and let's not forget once you do finally manage to get the thing open there's this magical tape covering all exposed edges of the case inside keeping you from actually opening it.
;-)
You'd think tape would be easy to get off, but someone must have spent a small fortune engineering this stuff, for simply trying to rip it results in a small thin strip that sticks to your fingers, clothes and anything else within a five foot radius of the package.
Finally, after spending ten minutes wrestling with the stupid DVD case, you pop the thing in and then get stuck watching the stupid company logo, FBI screens (don't copy now, yah-hear) and frelling commercials for movies that have long since left the cinema!!!!! Try as I might, the stupid pop up on the screen keeps telling me that fast-forward, menu, or any other damned button is "Not a valid option at this time."
So now I'm nursing cuts from the packaging, bits of tape stuck to my bleeding fingers, mashing buttons trying to watch the fracking movie, finally reaching the menu only to discover quality control wasn't quite up to snuff the day my disc was packaged. Somehow they managed to silk screen the Widescreen label on a Fullframe version of the film and then stick it in a clearly labeled Widescreen box.
And then they have the nerve to wonder why people download this shit! Oh well, at least I get to take out my frustration on the returns guy at Costco.
Pete...
I find it funny to think that just because a person spent what amounts to 1/4 of their life in school to become a doctor, is simply doing it for the money. Particularly when being a doctor is among one of the most difficult professions to get into.
The 20 plus years a person has to spend in school to learn the craft, all the testing, the sleepless nights and grueling schedules. Not to mention the sheer cost of actually going to medical school along with the payback of the loan money in the end; to think they're only doing it for the money is naive.
Oh sure, I'm not stupid, I know some people foolishly put themselves through hell for the sake of the money. Let's face it, doctors make piles of cash. But on the other side of the coin, there are other, much simpler ways for highly intelligent people (which you'd have to be if you actually graduated and became a doctor) to make piles of cash in a much faster time span.
No, it can't simply be possible that people become doctors and put up with all the intensity and hard work because they have a natural desire to help people.
It's great that your relative was able to afford the 100,000 cost for his life saving surgery. I am truly happy for you that your relative is alive and well and got the best care possible for him. I just don't see how much of a life he's going to have though, what with the need to take on extra hours at work or even an extra job just to pay off the medical bills. Sure, he's alive but at what costs to living his actual life.
Contrast that with the Canadian way of doing things. Every single citizen can walk into any hospital in the country and be certain someone will look at them and run tests. If the Doctors find anything life threatening that puts you in imminent danger of dying, you're going to get taken care of right away. However, if they find something potentially life threatening, but you aren't going to die right away, you get to go on the waiting list.
This of course is where our health care system gets all it's "bad" press. People whining because it can be uncomfortable and the negative effects on their lifestyle while waiting to be treated. While Doctors here understand this, because everyone is covered for health care and the resources are finite they need to prioritize care. Doctors assess your condition to determine how dangerous it is and when you need life saving treatment, then they prioritize the waiting list based on that. Minor conditions you will wait quite a while to be treated for as they are often managed quite well with drugs and/or therapy until you have your surgery.
Major conditions will usually get you in faster, and if your condition changes so you are now in imminent danger of dying, you get bumped to the top of the list.
Sure, my taxes are probably a bit higher than yours to pay for our universal health care and I know I will likely be uncomfortable waiting to be treated should I need it. What I do know is that despite all the waiting, I'll eventually get taken care of and be able to go back to my life. What's even more comforting to know is I won't have to potentially lose my house, take on a second job, or leave behind an overwhelming debt for my family. For that kind of security, I don't mind popping a few extra pain pills or enduring a few extra tests.
Pete...
I would fully expect, should someone ever figure out how to get replicators to work (which I hope they do), the "materialism" or "keeping up with the Joneses" our current society suffers from would pretty much disappear. Much of our current materialism is based on the idea that owning stuff determines how successful you are. Or just in case I "need" something, I have to own it. If I don't own it, I can't ever use it. I *need* to buy said item (whatever it is) and keep it around my house and even though I might only ever use it once I keep it around anyway just in case I might need it someday. When I look at my neighbors stuff and see something neat or expensive they have, it is easy to let my mind be fooled into thinking I *might* have a need for it too and that I have to own one. We tend to base our image of ourselves on the idea that the more stuff owned and the more expensive it is, the more "successful" we are.
I admit, I get caught up in the trap sometimes too.
But with replication technology that all goes away. When your food, shelter and material needs are just as easily replicated as your neighbors, the accumulation of "stuff" as a measure of personal success becomes pointless. Why would you keep a monster DVD collection when you could just as easily walk over to your replication terminal and ask for a copy of any movie you can think of. Then after you've watched it, recycle it back into the system knowing full well you could re-replicate it should you want to watch it again.
With everyone being on an equal footing economically, there would no longer be a need to keep up with the Joneses. I'd be willing to bet that outside of home decor, most people wouldn't bother keeping a lot of "stuff" around.
Pete...
Society will flourish and innovation will reach unparalleled levels of ingenuity. Your days will be filled with activities that interest you. With your food, shelter and material needs provided, you would no longer need to work a job you hate or barely tolerate just to survive.
This is without a doubt the hardest concept for people to understand. Too many people are tied to the concept of money and like the horse wearing blinders in a race, they simply can't see any other way of living. It's alien for them to even contemplate an existence where you don't have money and are unable to understand how a society like that could possibly function. What they fail to understand is that while some people will pick a career because it pays well and they can make a lot of money to be comfortable, most people pick a career because it genuinely interests them.
I know a few mechanics, construction workers and plumbers who have those jobs not just for the money
People have motivations for doing things beyond money. There will always be someone to do the "work" because there are always people who derive pleasure and fulfillment in knowing they are helping others.
Replication technology would free society from the mundane trappings of everyday life and open up the world of culture, education and innovation to anyone.
No longer would money or lack thereof be a determining factor in deciding your future and dreams. If you wanted to be a Doctor, you would now have just as much chance as anyone else to learn. Want to be a musician, replicate an instrument and start practicing; spend as much time as you want. Want to make a movie, look on the 'net for a group of other people with the same dream, replicate the needed materials and go make one. Maybe you want to design a new car, go ahead and do it then head down to the local "large scale" replimat and test it. Write the great Canadian (or American or *insert country of choice here*) novel. Learn to code and then write that video game you've always wanted to play; ask like minded people for help if you need it. Collaborate on the new CPU design you'll need to play your game when its finished. Exercise your artistic side and design a new outfit or use your analytical side and work on the cure for cancer.
Or don't do any of those things. Do whatever your want. That's the point. Replication technology would free you to be all you can be, to live up to your maximum potential (or less if you so chose). There is no limit to the kinds of scientific, medical or cultural enhancements people would come up with if they didn't have to spend 3/5ths of their day going through the motions simply trying to survive.
Think and use your imagination a little bit, open your mind and broaden your horizons; you'll realize there could be so much more to life than working for survival and replication technology is what we need to give us the freedom to get us there.
Pete...
Oh my... Thanks for the awesome laugh. I went to the link you provided, read through their FAQ's and other information. It took me ten minutes before my long forgotten High School Chemistry classes shook loose enough to catch the joke. I haven't laughed this hard in the longest time.
Thanks again.
The last thing we need is more laws to try and combat this problem. What we *need* is cops and law enforcement to do their jobs. Enforce the laws we already have.
When you are driving you have but one simple yet very important job, "DRIVE SAFELY". Keep your eyes on the road, be aware of your surroundings and maintain control of your vehicle based on conditions and traffic flow.
Personally, I feel that if you're talking on your cell phone, texting, putting on your makeup or dildoing yourself (yes, I've seen a woman do that while driving) you are being incredibly reckless and should be charged with Reckless Driving. Unless your wife is giving labour in the backseat and your talking to 911, there is no phone call, text message or e-mail important enough for you to do handle while driving. If it is that important, chances are it's going to make you emotional making you even more of a danger. Pull over first.
If you don't, you should be charged with Reckless Driving. The $1,000 fine, 5 points on your licenese and kick me in the ass insurance rates for seven years will probably make you think before doing it again.
Honestly, I think cops should go after cell-phone talkers more than speeders. Often speeders just go whizzing by 15-20 KPH faster than me in their own lane. Yet I am all too often cut off by a swerving cell-phone talking twink who can't even stay in the lane let alone signal a lane change and never checks their blindspot.
When you honk the horn at them for nearly kiling you, they just flip you the bird and look at you like you're the bad driver. Frelling reckless drivers.
Pete...
I seem to remember from history class that you sucessfully landed on the moon six times. I remember watching the little moon buggies roaming the surface and people playing golf. I'd go in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the whole motion sickness and sucking at math thing.
Yet now I'm supposed to believe you don't have the know-how from those six succesful tests to build a new rover or even a stationary habitat? Did no-one have the foresight to keep the original plans that you now have to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions (that could be spent sending people to the moon) on special fake moon dirt so you can spend untold billions to start the R&D process over again?
I mean let's face it. Outside of upgrades using new energy efficient technology and lighter materials, the design probably isn't going to change much from what was used in the original lunar missions.
What I find funny about the whole thing is the orignal test vehicles are *still* there! From what I remember, all the equipment was left behind to make room for the samples that were brought back. (Yes, the fuel requirements for the return trip played into it as well.) So you have SIX rovers just sitting there, pristine and untouched as if you left them there yesterday.
Why not just build a launch vehicle, or did you loose the plans for the Saturn V's too? Send a couple of people up there with replacement batteries, drive the crap out of it so it gets really dirty, then shrink wrap the whole thing for the trip home. They shouldn't be too hard to find, it's right where you parked it.
You'll save lots of time and probably money by cutting out the endless inane tests with pseudo material hoping you're right. Just go get the test vehicle that's already been exposed and guarantee you are right.
I've always hated this argument. It's based on the notion that obscene overwork will somehow make you forget why you're procrastinating in the first place. Most people procrastinate because the task is so mind nubmingly boring that they'd rather take time off work to clean their house (which they'll procrastinate doing once they're home).
Assign me tasks that are actually interesting. A task I'm interested and excited to be working on I almost never have trouble completing on or even before time.
Taking on extra tasks doesn't work. Sure you're busy and working like a dog just to keep up, but you're still going to be bored. Only now you won't have the wiggle room to procrastinate and prioritize tasks, making you a bundle of nervous energy on it's way to burning out quickly.
My grandmother had 16 kids so I have many nieces, nephews and cousins. At family functions, being the "fun" uncle, I'm usually tapped to supervise and play with those kids. I can tell you with certainty, kids are unpredictable bundles of pure energy. It doesn't matter how careful you are in playing with them, you *will* unintentionaly hurt them.
Kids are pretty smart in their own way, but they don't have the same wisdom and level of understanding of the world as adults do. They *will* do things no sane adult would do, they *will* fall down, they *will* get hurt. If they ask you to play catch and they bend down to tie a shoe after you've thrown the ball, don't be shocked if the ball hits them in the head.
Obviously that wasn't what you would inteded to happen, but it did and it hurts. Now, every time their sibling pokes the bump on their head, the "Ow!" they yelp out reminds them to pay attention to their surroundings and be certain they're ready before I throw the ball.
Which, if you think about it, is the same lesson learned by the young lady in the original posting.
I know this will probably get modded as flamebait, if it gets modded at all. But honestly, I don't see how anyone could take this quote as any kind of condemnation of homosexuals. Seriously.
I think of when this was written and how the Bible is supposedly the literal word of god. So I read the passage literally.
The status of a woman in those times was so low they were essentially little more than property. In terms of their society, it wasn't important to be truthful to women; they were mere slaves meant to birth heirs and care for them. They had little if any rights and only the men mattered.
Men on the other hand were all important, deserving and demanding of your respect. In your dealings with your fellow man it was important to be truthfull, though some types of casual lying were probably allowed. Yet if you dared to degrade another man by lying with him as you would your woman you were killed for your extreme untruthfulness and the other man was killed for the shame of being treated as a woman.
Honestly, I don't see how this could be interpreted any other way. If they *were* talking about sexual acts, they would have talked about fornication. The fact that they didn't tells me they were talking about always being truthful to men while being less truthful to their women.
While the article points out the "No Meetings" rule, I'm pretty sure that if there were a need for one, they would book it. I think what the rule means is none of the "stupid" meetings.
If you've worked in any kind of corporate environment, you'll know just what I'm talking about. The daily "status" meeting where we talk about workloads, like we all don't know how to run the reports ourselves (it's the first thing every single one of us does in the morning).
Or the project status meeting, where you get together every week to rehash the previous weeks e-mail traffic.
But in general, unless you're on a project or in some kind of managemnt position, how many meetings do you really go to?
I know Slashdot has a lot of IT workers, but let's be brutally honest. Most people in a company are front line grunts whose sole function is to process the large volumes of work the company receives. Once you learn your role, most of the work is kept and processed on the system. Seldom is contact with another team member necessary unless you have a particlarly complicated case that requires two pairs of eyes to work out.
Even if you *are* in IT, unless you're physically changing the hardware I can't see why you couldn't VPN or SSH (I think I'm missing an S here) into the system and do your work.
What I do every day is mostly e-mail based (I make/receive two to four phone calls a day) and it could be done from home, or on a beach in Cancun with Wi-Fi and a cell phone. Meeting wise, I can honestly say I've been to less than 15 productive meetings all year, with eight of those being the quarterly status reports everyone has to to go to (one for the department, one for the division).
For the option of working from home on a relaxed schedule with fewer flow killing destractions and the chance to go outside and play with my niece on a nice day while waking up at 10:00 AM; I'd make the time to go to the office 10 or 15 times a year.
People laugh when I talk about this. Some even say I'm inherently lazy (when it comes to housework I'd agree), but I'm not joking when I talk about having a Work Allergy.
/* I posted on this once before, I'm just too lazy to look it up. Yes I was actively looking and went on many interviews. */.
/* Woke up each morning at 10:00 AM, checked my online job searches, stuffed resumes into envelopes and did call backs on the ones from the week before. Worked out from 10:30 AM to 11:15 AM, cooled down by taking my envelopes to the mailbox and picking up the current paper then filled the day with whatever I wanted to do. */
/* My friends and family were *very* happy about this. */
/* My Doctor was even happier about this. */.
;-)
Yes, you read that right. Work Allergy.
I've worked varying types of jobs. I've done the mundane general labour jobs, to working on complicated projects. It didn't matter what I did, what my work hours were, I have always felt burnt out while working. Not just your general, "Ugh, I hate this job, can't wait for the weekend." type of burnout. I'm talking the, "I'm emotionally ready to retire now and in 11,651 days I'll never need to work a day in my life ever again!" kind of burnout.
I've felt burnt out for most of my life. Been on antidepressants twice. Taking Monocor now to keep the stress of work from making my heart fly apart. Once, my Doctor forced me to quit a particularly stressful job as he was fearful I would suffer a heart attack.
The only time I've been happy as an adult? The three years I was unemployed
The ability to have direct control over what I did in a day was the the most freeing feeling in the world. To know that I could do what I wanted, when I wanted, and that I could stop when I got bored; I haven't ever been happier, healthier or saner. My Doctor couldn't believe the change in me.
I was fitter
More personable
I was even able to stop taking my medication
The only downside was the lack of money and the uncertainty of how I was going to continue paying for my life. But I was having so much fun for the first time in my life that it wasn't very stressful.
I took a month off my current job recently. It was very much like those three years off. When I got back to work, no-one could believe how relaxed and energetic I was and I received many comments about all the weight I'd lost. I didn't have one panic/anxiety attack. No stress, no pounding chest pains. And I was able to stop my meds again.
I've tried different jobs, part time, relaxed schedules. It doesn't matter. Soon after starting a new job my stress goes up, the weight starts to pack on, I'm always in constant pain, I can't sleep, my chest hurts and then I need to start the meds again just to keep from having a heart attack. My mood changes, I can't focus, every conversation becomes an exercise in sarcasm.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not afraid of hard work. I work hard in every job I've ever done. I always put forth the best possible effort to ensure that my job is completed to the best of my abilities. I take pride in a job well done.
I just can't handle doing the actual work. I really wish I could retire. Having a free form, non directed unplanned day filled with things that interest me and knowing I can quit when bored would make me unbelievably happy. Unfortunately, no one will pay me for doing this, so I have to make do the best I can.
Oh well, at least I only have 11,651 days until retirement.
It's nice to think that when you want to play a game, you can always turn to your friends to play.
But what happens when, like me, none of your friends are into video games? It happens, there is no rule stating your friends have to have all of the *exact* same interests you do. Since none of my friends are into gaming, it's important to me the game has some decent multi-player. It's fun to play with someone after I've finished the single player campaign.
While it's true I'm able to con my non-gaming friends or family into the odd game, it isn't often. So online multi-player really comes in handy.
Actually, I would like to see 25 years for most works (I'll get to this later), period.
Why would I say this? A lot of our ideas and inspiration come from the works that we watched, read and listened to as children. Having a 25 year limit on copyright would allow those reaching adulthood the opportunity to draw upon those works. Wouldn't you have had your novel, film, album project ready to shop around the second the copyright expired?
I know for myself, I would have.
I have ideas I think people would be interested in seeing or reading yet the current copyright term length guarantees no one will ever see or read them. My creations are inspired and draw heavily on what came before; under the current system I have no incentive to create. Assuming no further extensions are forthcoming, it is likley I will be dead or close to it before I'd be permitted to draw from the works of my childhood (born 1973).
So much for progressing the arts.
25 years makes a lot of sense to me. It's long enough to give copyright holders leverage in how their works are used, yet short enough that users of the works can look forward to expanding on them and creating their own.
The only thing that should have a shorter limit is news items and for those I think 5 years would suffice. Long enough for the particular newspaper or television station to make some money and give them their "exclusive", yet short enough for historians to get easy access to the works.
Not to mention the pain from the chaffed, bruised and blistered skin will take your mind off the arthritis allowing you to keep on playing video games.
It's Win Win!
Hazy. Drunk. Brain. Wonders.
Is. Keanu. Impersonating. Bill? Or. Bill. Impersonating. Keanu?
Woah!
As do I.
He looks like such a nice young man with a bright future ahead of him. I would hate to see him cut down in his prime, destined for a life of misery brought on by a disabling injury from excessive on the job pummeling. To ensure his continued good health and lack of injury I humbly agree to sign a waiver of liability and offer my services as his personal stunt double.
It's the least I can do as a concerned citizen.
Because this is Slashdot. While it might be fun to make android copies of Grace Park using Lego Mindstorms, those hard bricks, 90 degree angles and pointed corners make playing with her not fun. Not to mention the lube keeps shorting the damned thing out.
Or so people tell me.
Pete...
I too had the same problem with my iPod (30 gig). For some reason I kept hearing some songs more than others. Eventually I just setup a Smart Playlist called "Stuff that's seldom played". It relies on the fact that when a song is fully played through it not only ups the play count but also the Last Played Date field. With the SmartPlaylist I have it set with three conditions:
1) Last Played field does not have a date that ocurred in the last 5 days.
2) Genre does not equal "Postcast".
3) Time is less than 40:00.
I click the "Limit to" checkbox and set it to 250 Songs
You could tailor this to your 2 Gig nano by changhing the Last Played to 2 days along while setting "Limit to" for a size like 1850 MB or something that can fill the 2 gig iPod and leaving live update of the playlist on. Depending on the length of your songs, this *should* put about a day and a halfs worth of music on your iPod. Since you're unlikley to listen to it for 24 hours straight, you shouldn't run into problems with this setup.
A nice this about this is if you have a music library larger than 2 gigs, when you sync your iPod it should automatically swap out the songs that don't meet the SmartPlaylists conditions, replacing them with ones that do.
I've been using this setup for about a month now and the only time I hear the same song more than once every 5 days is when it's on multiple "Greatest Hits" Albums.
Pete...
Actually, starting at 7 is way too late.
When little Billy or Janey says, "Mommy, Daddy, where do babies come from." is the time to start. No, you will *not* go into a complete fully detailed account of sexual reproduction, but you *should* be the grown up and at least be honest and tell them in terms they will understand.
When I was 4 I asked that question. Mom pulled out the old encyclopedia Britannica and turned it to the anatomy section. They had a whole section of drawn cutaway pictures of the human body. She pointed to the pregnant woman and showed me where babies came from. I was four, I didn't need to know about penises, sperm, eggs, fallopian tubes or menstral cycles. I just wanted to know where babies came from, she showed me and that was that.
From that point on, my parents *always* made it clear that anytime I had questions about babies or my body I could go to them. Had my Mom not been so frank with me as a child and given me a kiddie answer instead, I don't think I would have gone to my parents with the more "interesting" questions as a teenager.
I eventually learned all about the "birds and the bees" (thanks Britannica) as I got older and knew a *lot* more than the kids in the sex-ed classes that were mandatory in 7th grade. Mom did all the science and biology information (the aforementionted penises, sperm, fallopian tubes, menstral cycles, diseases, contraceptives, etc..) while Dad covered the emotional maturity and responsibility versus "feels good" type questions.
They were frank, candid and not the least bit judgemental. I honestly could and did ask them things most kids would *never* ask their parents. When I asked about behaviours or activities I was always given the pro's and con's and left to decide for myself. I am absolutley greatful for their maturity towards sex as the knowledge they imparted allowed me to make fully informed decisions about my own sex life.
Pete...
I spent hours and hours playing Earth Orbit Stations as a kid.
It's a very hard game to describe as there was so much to it, but in essence you were given command to build a space station and make it profitable. You had a number of missions to complete before a set time, all the while your friends were *also* trying to complete the missions before you! You had to learn to balance setting station modules for research, profit, or maintaining the station.
The game would throw in little *snags* to mix things up, and if you wanted a *real* challenge you could turn on "component scheduling" where you would have to plan your station in your head, schedule the parts on shuttle launches and then put the thing together as the parts arrived. This game was under-rated but incredibly fun.
If they port this to the Wii, I'm going from a potential buy to a buy for sure.
Pete...
This is true only if you're lucky enough to have a job that offers pension benefits where they will directly deposit and match the amount you specify into an RRSP using before tax dollars. If you're like the rest of us, you're going to have to apply the funds to you retirement savings plan yourself *after* the taxes have already come off the money, waiting until tax time (usually in February) to inform the government how much you put into you RRSP.
*Then* you get the tax money back, and you're a fool if you don't put that money straight back into your RRSP to increase your retirement savings and tax return for the next year. Essentially that money is gone, earmarked for your retirement, and cannot be included as part of your standard of living
It's a rainy day fund. While it's main purpose is to shelter you should you loose your job, it does have other uses. Does your car never break down/need replacing? Have to buy a new bed for the kids because they've outgrown the last one? You'll need a good sized down-payment for your house, and while you can de-register your RRSP tax-free if you pay it back in 15 years, you will probably have to dip into that rainy-day fund to furnish your home.
As your wages go up, the need for extra savings goes up. Not to mention that at 10% a year, even with interest, it's going to take 8 years or so to reach your 90% goal. Assuming you don't use it for furnishings, fixing your car and other rainy day events. Simply put, you're going to touch it more than you think, meaning you will need to continue saving 10% of your take home each year.
Like I said, the numbers were an estimate and would fluctuate based on your geographic location. It is a well known fact that American's typically have a lower cost on foodstuffs than in Canada. It is not at all uncommon here to go the the grocers, walk out with 50+ dollars in food and have it last only a few days. And *that's* for a single person. My typical weekly expenses for foodstuffs, even assuming I don't eat out at all, is still over $100.00 a week.
Now I will concede that as you increase the number of people in your household you will probably buy more in bulk thereby saving you money. In the beginning with only one or two people, buying in bulk doesn't make much sense as the food will go bad before you get a chance to eat it. You will also eat out more as you want to avoid the hassle of cooking, cleaning and grocery shopping (takes a lot of time and is often worth the minimal increase in cost to get that time back).
No, obviously the nature of the relationship changes once you get married and have kids. You're not going to go out nearly as much, still, there is something to be said for sending the kids off to a babysitter/relative for an evening once in a while and going out.
I'm not disputing life changes after you're married with kids, I'm talking about the *building* of the relationship.
Most men don't just meet a girl, go on a first date, immediately hook up, get married and pop a few kids. You need to get to know them first, spend time with them, figure out if you can handle the quirks in their personality, l
I can understand why you call Bullshit. As I said in my original post it was an *average* and your milage may vary depending on your geographic location or country. Myself I live in Canada, I guess I should have included that in my original post, and our standard of living is higher here than in most American states. Still, you've asked for a more detailed breakdown, so here we go.
Starting with the single guy living alone. I stated you needed 33,500 minimum to have a decent standard of living.
Any good financial planner will tell you two things. 1) You need to save a *minimum* of 25% of your gross earnings each year if you expect to retire and live for 15-20 years at your current standard of living. 2) Your cash on hand savings should be equal to 3-6 months of your current wages in case you loose your job. Since taxes change from state to state and province to province I'll base my numbers on the net 33,500 above.
Let's assume you're a young guy and want to defer some of that until later, you're only going to save 15%.
15% of 33,500 is 5,025.00 saved for retirement each year.
Now let me clarify, I personally put away only 10% of each pay for this purpose as I make considerably less than the 33,500 I mention above. I simply don't have enough after taxes (an no, I'm not going to say what it is, I don't need some troll-bot getting a hold of my annual salary information so I get even more spam) to cover the amount above.
To satisfy condition 2 I try to put away 10% of my yearly pay (I don't always suceed, sacrifices sometimes need to be made). I'll use the 33,500 above as a baseline.
10% of 33,500 is 3,350.00
Chances are if you're living alone, you've just started out. So you're going to rent for a few years. I wouldn't recommend this for more than that as most mortgages on three bedroom houses can be comparable to rent on the same, why throw your money away when it could be invested? Still, as I'd said you're going to probably be living alone in a rented apartment for the first few years.
Rent in a decent well maintained all inclusive (heat, hydro, water) one bedroom apartment in a nice neighborhood is going to cost anywhere from 650 to 850 with the average being 750 per month.
Rent at 750 per month equals 9,000.00
Food costs are enormous. Eating healthy simply costs a lot of money. Fruits, vegetables, meats (all types), grains and milk products all cost quite a bit money. You can only live on ramen noodles and cans of tuna for so long before doing damage to yourself. To be healthy, you need to eat healthy. The problem is healthy is expensive. For myself it is not at all uncommon to spend upwards of 150.00 per week for food, I know some people with special dietary requirements that are over 200.00. Still we'll go with the 150.00.
150.00 per week at 52 weeks a year is 7,800.00
Before we go on, lets' add up what we have so far.
Retirement Savings: 5,025.00
Rainy Day Savings: 3,350.00
Rent: 9,000.00
Food Costs: 7,800.00
Total Costs so far: 25,175.00
Remaining Cash to Play with: 33,500.00 - 25,175.00 = 8,325.00
Let's continue with some of the basics, I'll use what I pay as a basis, you can change these numbers if you desire.
Phone: 30.00 x 12 = 360.00
Internet: 50.00 x 12 = 600.00
Entertainment (spending time with friends, whatever): 50 x 52 = 2,600.00
Total here: 3,560.00
Total remaining: 8,325.00 - 3,560.00 = 4,765.00
Girlfriend - This is where it gets interesting, most women hate being boiled down to a cost but what they need to realize is that all the fun things they like to do with us does cost money, if I'm going to make my retirement goals and life goals I need to budget for dates just like I do anything else.
Your milage may vary, but I have found on average a date will cost $75.00. Yes, some will be cheaper, but a woman will only go on so many cheap "let's go get an ice cream and go for a walk and talk" dates before she thinks "he's a cheapskate" and t