Horseshit.
If all sellers have their costs go down, prices stay the same and profits go up.
That's why the price of computers is still millions of dollars. Because their cost went down, but computer manufacturers decided to keep the prices constant and keep all the profits for themselves./s
" if all sellers' costs decrease, competition will drive the price down over time."
Nope. We have seen many time where that does NOT happen, and it never happen equatable.
Actually see this happen in almost every situation. Why don't computers cost millions of dollars? They used to cost that much. Don't computer manufacturers stand to profit more if they never lower the price of what they sell, even as their own costs go down?
Even with the example of these car loans. They are charging X dollars. Why don't they just charge double that amount? What is preventing them from making that much more profit?
It only works if you buy into the neo-liberal notion that more liquidity in an economy always benefits all actors of that economy.
It doesn't need to *always* benefit all actors every time, to be beneficial. Things can be beneficial on average.
Other things that do not benefit all actors in every situation include, democracy, judicial systems, law enforcement, professional healthcare, exercise, relationships, food, water, etc. This clearly can't be the standard of whether something is good or bad.
You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant
You said mammals don't fly (i.e. cells can't keep reproducing), and I said bats fly (i.e. some cells can keep reproducing). If it's not relevant that some cells can keep reproducing, why was it relevant to state that the false claim that cells cannot keep reproducing? I did not bring this topic up. You did. I was simply pointing out that it was false.
because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.
I suppose it might seem that way to a narrow minded person.
Not unless you are a geneticist and were intentionally misinforming people. Geneticists are well aware of the fact that some human cells can divide indefinitely without problems. In fact it is essential for being able to produce children that don't immediately die because their cells are actually 4 billion years old and have divided trillions of times already.
Your cells don't wear out and die, your skin doesn't age, your organs don't fail, no one gets cancer...
*Some/Most* human cells start to age after a certain number of divisions. not all of them. Furthermore, cancer is an example when your cells *don't* die after a certain number of divisions. They actually become immortal, which is problematic for the person with cancer, but this phenomenon gives us insight into possible cures to aging. It is widely believed that programmed cell death may have been an adaptation mutlicellular organisms evolved to fight cancer.
Like are you that obtuse? I think you're the one who's failing victim to your logic, since you're the one exhibiting the fallacy.
What fallacy? Can you tell me specifically?
When the topic of conversation is how long do people live, how can you make a statement that some cells last indefinitely, in the context of human life, where no one has lasted indefinitely? This isn't a case of 'mammals can't fly' it's a case of 'pigs can't fly', and you're saying 'but bats do', yes, they can, so what?
You specifically said there is a limit to how many times *cells* can keep reproducing. And this is false. Some cells have this limit and some do not. Notice that I did not argue that some humans last indefinitely.
If black holes don't exist, then the answer is "something other than a black hole". I would say that things as massive as black holes have been observationally confirmed. Whether these things have been observed to have all the properties of the traditional mathematical model of a black hole is a different claim.
I'm skeptical of the claim that "black holes don't exist", but saying "we observed them" is begging the question, because it presupposes that the observed phenomena was a black hole.
Nothing either of us has said has anything to do with ethics or guilt. You spouted some woowoo nonsense, and I felt motivated to call you out on it. You clearly have no intention nor ability to defend what you claimed.
There is a limit on how many times these things [cells] can keep reproducing
I am arguing that this statement is false.
Even with people dying of old age, some of the cells in the human body can divide indefinitely. You can say "mammals can't fly". The fact that most can't fly still doesn't make that a correct statement.
Well then almost nobody in the first world is living a natural life anyway, so it doesn't matter what the limits are since they don't apply to anyone with modern healthcare.
I just broke my foot 2 weeks ago, and I was presented 2 options by my orthopedic surgeon (picked by my HMO).
1. Put it in a cast for 6-8 weeks and hope it heals on it's own (75% chance of working, given that I am "young"), and maybe save some money. If it doesn't work do #2.
2. Get surgery which involved putting a pin in my 5th metatarsal, and an injection of stem cells to stimulate healing, 100% chance of success and a 4 week recovery time.
There might have been a time when stem cells were the cutting edge. Now it's just something you get if you are willing to pay extra to get better faster.
Maybe the kind of stem cell treatments that would extend your life would be considered a serious intervention and cutting edge today. But in the future it might just be routine. Like how all the routine medical interventions we do today were once considered severe and cutting edge, and before that were not even possible.
I can sense that your light energy is skewed, and that may be why you are not seeing the problem clearly. Maybe if you re-align your spirit crystals, you'd see I am right.
Once we are able to use gene therapy to correct mutations, and other problems of this sort, I don't think we will have to wait until people get to be 150 before we know it's working.
Any treatment that solves the underlying problems of aging, will surely solve some of the unwanted symptoms of aging as well. If someone feels (and/or looks) like an 20 year old at 70, we'll know it's working. Even if this person drops dead at 100, there will be people lining up around the block to get this treatment.
Geneticists will tell you that around 90, your cells start to have lots of problems. The current consensus is that your body will tend to be worn out around 90.
Find me the geneticist that says it's impossible to solve these problems. Nobody intends to tackle aging, without attempting to solve these problems. This is like saying, we will never get to the moon because cars can only go like 100,000 miles and can't fly.
There is a limit on how many times these things can keep reproducing, and your body just eventually wears out.
Well we are all the result of the same reproducing life form that first existed 3+ billion years ago. So if it were true that cells could not reproduce indefinitely, we know they can at least divide for billions of years, as evidenced by life on earth.
Clearly most of the cells in the human body (i.e. not the ones that are used to make new human beings) have limitations that currently limit the number of divisions they can undertake. This may be an evolutionary strategy against cancer, but that doesn't mean these limitations are insurmountable.
When they did tests on some really old woman who died at a fairly ripe old age above 110, iirc, they found that she only had two stem cells (yes, 2) producing white blood cells.
And it's impossible to give someone more cells?
All the problems with longevity are physical problems with physical solutions. Maybe we won't figure out the solutions to these problems any time soon, but they exist.
And sadly, that will be a terrible day for the planet. We're already stressing the damned thing well past any measure of sustainability.. stop the aging process and we'll replace "dying of old age" with "dying of thirst/starvation."
As long as people have the same number of children, people living longer doesn't change the birth rate : death rate ratio, it will only cause a temporary bump in the instantaneous number of living people.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that advances in longevity will not be accompanied with advances in natural resource conservation/efficiency. We already have cars that are approaching the 100mph mark, and there is nearly unlimited solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal energy out there.
I've seen projections that the planet could support an order of magnitude more people if we did it more efficiently.
Not getting straight A's in advanced Reimannian topology and also able to run the quarter mile in less than 8 seconds by the time you're 14? We've got a nice camp over here for you.
All trends point to societies getting more compassionate with greater wealth, knowledge, technology, etc. So I really don't see the death camps playing a large role in the future.
If you really believe you are alive and there is a real dimension, an energy to life, like all other forms of energy it logically must be in balance.
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, regarding this statement. "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,"
What would the world look like if "all life forms of energy were not in balance"?
What if someone else proposes that "All lifeforms of energy are out of balance as evidenced by all the wars and suffering in the world". How is one to decide who is right? Or is everybody just equally right if they believe something hard enough, or wish it to be true enough?
Now if medicine advanced to the point where most people could live a healthy life up to 100, then you'd have a point. But there's no indication we are near that point.
We don't need to be near that point now. We just need to be on track to be near that point by the time I get old.
What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?
I reject the assumption that there can be no real enjoyment of life after the age of 75, now and at every point in the future. Nobody wants to live an empty life, but there is no reason that this situation can't be improved.
When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want? When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?
There is no universal law of physics that says all these thing will happen at age 75 for all eternity.
I can see his point easily enough. I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list.
Maybe cancer treatment will not improve in 15 years. Or maybe it will. Maybe we will be able to correct damaged DNA using gene therapy.
I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper.
I think there is a very good chance we will have robots that can change diapers in 35 years. I don't consider having my diaper changed by a robot to be any more degrading than to have a self driving car take me places I want to go.
It's not just that these kinds of designs aren't as polished. They are limited and architecture dependent even when they are done "correctly". An atomic memory access in one architecture may not be atomic in another, or you may need to write your own assembly instructions to get the atomic instruction you need on a particular architecture. They are limited in that they don't provide a way for the thread to signal to the OS that they are just waiting and don't need to consume any more cycles until the resource they are waiting for is available.
I do think it's good to try to attempt these sorts of synchronization hacks, if only to run into all the problems first hand and to better appreciate better solutions (i.e. OS level synchronization primitives). I don't consider these types of locks to be less polished versions of good solutions, I consider them to be fatally flawed.
And as I said. I don't think thread synchronization is an insanely difficult concept. But it must be at least a little tricky for the simple fact that that it was invented by one of the most famous computer scientists in history rather than simply the first person who thought about the problem for a few hours.
Also, even if I agree that thread synchronization has a simple solution (i.e. OS level sync primitives), with this one example, I don't see how you can say that most well defined problems in computer science have simple solutions, unless you are going to say that every problem without an easy solution is not well defined.
But my counter point would be that many operating systems have been built in C, and people who rely too much on "modern compilers" often don't know what's really happening. I cut my teeth doing OS-level programming in C at the interrupt-handler level. Good times.
Linux is written in C. Python (a 4th generation language) is written in C. Lots of important stuff is written in C. I started out with C debugging kernel, BSP, driver bugs on real time embedded systems. There certainly is a time and a place for C, if even just for dealing with legacy code, but there are too many people who only know how to use C, and refuse to use the advantages of other languages, and write UI code that looks like a kernel driver.
I'm not saying people should start all new projects in C, but a good solid grounding in C really does give one a good perspective on what's really happening in the innards of your code. It's about as close to "bare metal" programming as you can get without assembly.
I totally agree. In school I learned assembly, logic circuit design, and designed a whole computer (ALU, memory controller, bus, etc) that implemented a defined machine instruction set. I even wrote a recursive merge sort in assembly that was compiled by an assembler that I wrote and ran it on our own computers as the final test that we did it right.
I think knowing the innards of how computers work really helps you appreciate and properly use high level design.
Because, "Pointers to pointers to printf()-like functions" was a pretty nifty language feature sometimes.
You could do some pretty neat things in C.
You really could, I sometimes miss writing it, but I sure don't miss reading other people's C code. I read C++ code all the time that is just c code wrapped in a class with one method. It's no wonder these people think C++ is stupid, they're doing it wrong.
1. Math is not a science. Math is math. Science is an endeavor that relies on math. Math doesn't rely on science.
2. You clearly don't know what liberal arts are.
3. Even with all the tools at your fingertips, you can't even be bothered to do some basic research before displaying your ignorance in public, albeit anonymously.
Nearly all solutions are simple given a well defined problem.
Nearly all solutions are simple given a well defined problem. I tend to "reinvent" solutions all the time. When I started playing with multi-threading, I was toying around with lots of different ways to handle locking and trying to safely handle sync without locks. Seems everything that I discovered on my own has already been done before, typically decades ago back in the 60s and 70s, but it doesn't mean I had to have someone else "discover" it for me. The solutions were blindingly obvious for anyone who spent a few hours thinking about the issues.
I'm skeptical when someone makes a claim like "I would have invented X if it wasn't already invented.", but lets say for the sake of argument that it's true. Nearly all computer problems are easily solved by someone as smart as yourself. Go solve some unsolved problems. Win the next Turing Award and become a multimillionaire.
Furthermore, when you say you were "playing around with different ways of handling locking", am I correct in assuming that you were just using existing operating system constructs rather than writing your own operating system and thread synchronization constructs?
I made a read write lock out of some mutexes as well. I don't have any delusions that I would have invented the semaphore before dijkstra if I were born earlier.
I don't need to have managed a project to know that sometimes an engineers skills might be more important than the skills of his manager. All I am saying is that when this is the case, it would be nice to have compensation reflective of that.
I am offered a management position every year, and I know that I as a manager would be less valuable than me as an engineer, so there is one example right there.
I never made any generalizations. You seem to be the one making a generalization that I must dislike wisdom if I dislike stubborn old programmers, by assuming that every old programmer is wise.
And yet you complain about Microsoft always taking up all the gains in CPU/memory speeds?
I haven't complained about microsoft's software engineering approach in about a decade. I have an 8 year old computer that still runs windows 7 just fine. It probably runs windows 8 perfectly fine too, I just don't like the UI.
Slashdot Mirror
Horseshit.
If all sellers have their costs go down, prices stay the same and profits go up.
That's why the price of computers is still millions of dollars. Because their cost went down, but computer manufacturers decided to keep the prices constant and keep all the profits for themselves. /s
" if all sellers' costs decrease, competition will drive the price down over time."
Nope. We have seen many time where that does NOT happen, and it never happen equatable.
Actually see this happen in almost every situation. Why don't computers cost millions of dollars? They used to cost that much. Don't computer manufacturers stand to profit more if they never lower the price of what they sell, even as their own costs go down?
Even with the example of these car loans. They are charging X dollars. Why don't they just charge double that amount? What is preventing them from making that much more profit?
It only works if you buy into the neo-liberal notion that more liquidity in an economy always benefits all actors of that economy.
It doesn't need to *always* benefit all actors every time, to be beneficial. Things can be beneficial on average.
Other things that do not benefit all actors in every situation include, democracy, judicial systems, law enforcement, professional healthcare, exercise, relationships, food, water, etc. This clearly can't be the standard of whether something is good or bad.
You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant
You said mammals don't fly (i.e. cells can't keep reproducing), and I said bats fly (i.e. some cells can keep reproducing). If it's not relevant that some cells can keep reproducing, why was it relevant to state that the false claim that cells cannot keep reproducing? I did not bring this topic up. You did. I was simply pointing out that it was false.
because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.
I suppose it might seem that way to a narrow minded person.
So what geneticists have said is a lie.
Not unless you are a geneticist and were intentionally misinforming people. Geneticists are well aware of the fact that some human cells can divide indefinitely without problems. In fact it is essential for being able to produce children that don't immediately die because their cells are actually 4 billion years old and have divided trillions of times already.
Your cells don't wear out and die, your skin doesn't age, your organs don't fail, no one gets cancer...
*Some/Most* human cells start to age after a certain number of divisions. not all of them. Furthermore, cancer is an example when your cells *don't* die after a certain number of divisions. They actually become immortal, which is problematic for the person with cancer, but this phenomenon gives us insight into possible cures to aging. It is widely believed that programmed cell death may have been an adaptation mutlicellular organisms evolved to fight cancer.
Like are you that obtuse? I think you're the one who's failing victim to your logic, since you're the one exhibiting the fallacy.
What fallacy? Can you tell me specifically?
When the topic of conversation is how long do people live, how can you make a statement that some cells last indefinitely, in the context of human life, where no one has lasted indefinitely? This isn't a case of 'mammals can't fly' it's a case of 'pigs can't fly', and you're saying 'but bats do', yes, they can, so what?
You specifically said there is a limit to how many times *cells* can keep reproducing. And this is false. Some cells have this limit and some do not. Notice that I did not argue that some humans last indefinitely.
If black holes don't exist, then the answer is "something other than a black hole". I would say that things as massive as black holes have been observationally confirmed. Whether these things have been observed to have all the properties of the traditional mathematical model of a black hole is a different claim.
I'm skeptical of the claim that "black holes don't exist", but saying "we observed them" is begging the question, because it presupposes that the observed phenomena was a black hole.
Nothing either of us has said has anything to do with ethics or guilt. You spouted some woowoo nonsense, and I felt motivated to call you out on it. You clearly have no intention nor ability to defend what you claimed.
There is a limit on how many times these things [cells] can keep reproducing
I am arguing that this statement is false.
Even with people dying of old age, some of the cells in the human body can divide indefinitely. You can say "mammals can't fly". The fact that most can't fly still doesn't make that a correct statement.
Well then almost nobody in the first world is living a natural life anyway, so it doesn't matter what the limits are since they don't apply to anyone with modern healthcare.
I just broke my foot 2 weeks ago, and I was presented 2 options by my orthopedic surgeon (picked by my HMO).
1. Put it in a cast for 6-8 weeks and hope it heals on it's own (75% chance of working, given that I am "young"), and maybe save some money. If it doesn't work do #2.
2. Get surgery which involved putting a pin in my 5th metatarsal, and an injection of stem cells to stimulate healing, 100% chance of success and a 4 week recovery time.
There might have been a time when stem cells were the cutting edge. Now it's just something you get if you are willing to pay extra to get better faster.
Maybe the kind of stem cell treatments that would extend your life would be considered a serious intervention and cutting edge today. But in the future it might just be routine. Like how all the routine medical interventions we do today were once considered severe and cutting edge, and before that were not even possible.
I can sense that your light energy is skewed, and that may be why you are not seeing the problem clearly. Maybe if you re-align your spirit crystals, you'd see I am right.
Once we are able to use gene therapy to correct mutations, and other problems of this sort, I don't think we will have to wait until people get to be 150 before we know it's working.
Any treatment that solves the underlying problems of aging, will surely solve some of the unwanted symptoms of aging as well. If someone feels (and/or looks) like an 20 year old at 70, we'll know it's working. Even if this person drops dead at 100, there will be people lining up around the block to get this treatment.
Geneticists will tell you that around 90, your cells start to have lots of problems. The current consensus is that your body will tend to be worn out around 90.
Find me the geneticist that says it's impossible to solve these problems. Nobody intends to tackle aging, without attempting to solve these problems. This is like saying, we will never get to the moon because cars can only go like 100,000 miles and can't fly.
There is a limit on how many times these things can keep reproducing, and your body just eventually wears out.
Well we are all the result of the same reproducing life form that first existed 3+ billion years ago. So if it were true that cells could not reproduce indefinitely, we know they can at least divide for billions of years, as evidenced by life on earth.
Clearly most of the cells in the human body (i.e. not the ones that are used to make new human beings) have limitations that currently limit the number of divisions they can undertake. This may be an evolutionary strategy against cancer, but that doesn't mean these limitations are insurmountable.
When they did tests on some really old woman who died at a fairly ripe old age above 110, iirc, they found that she only had two stem cells (yes, 2) producing white blood cells.
And it's impossible to give someone more cells?
All the problems with longevity are physical problems with physical solutions. Maybe we won't figure out the solutions to these problems any time soon, but they exist.
And sadly, that will be a terrible day for the planet. We're already stressing the damned thing well past any measure of sustainability.. stop the aging process and we'll replace "dying of old age" with "dying of thirst/starvation."
As long as people have the same number of children, people living longer doesn't change the birth rate : death rate ratio, it will only cause a temporary bump in the instantaneous number of living people.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that advances in longevity will not be accompanied with advances in natural resource conservation/efficiency. We already have cars that are approaching the 100mph mark, and there is nearly unlimited solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal energy out there.
I've seen projections that the planet could support an order of magnitude more people if we did it more efficiently.
Not getting straight A's in advanced Reimannian topology and also able to run the quarter mile in less than 8 seconds by the time you're 14? We've got a nice camp over here for you.
All trends point to societies getting more compassionate with greater wealth, knowledge, technology, etc. So I really don't see the death camps playing a large role in the future.
If you really believe you are alive and there is a real dimension, an energy to life, like all other forms of energy it logically must be in balance.
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, regarding this statement. "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,"
What would the world look like if "all life forms of energy were not in balance"?
What if someone else proposes that "All lifeforms of energy are out of balance as evidenced by all the wars and suffering in the world". How is one to decide who is right? Or is everybody just equally right if they believe something hard enough, or wish it to be true enough?
Now if medicine advanced to the point where most people could live a healthy life up to 100, then you'd have a point. But there's no indication we are near that point.
We don't need to be near that point now. We just need to be on track to be near that point by the time I get old.
I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act.
I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people drop their annoying superiority acts.
There are living fates much worse than death. Being around you might be one of them.
You don't seem like such a prize either.
What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?
I reject the assumption that there can be no real enjoyment of life after the age of 75, now and at every point in the future. Nobody wants to live an empty life, but there is no reason that this situation can't be improved.
When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want? When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?
There is no universal law of physics that says all these thing will happen at age 75 for all eternity.
I can see his point easily enough. I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list.
Maybe cancer treatment will not improve in 15 years. Or maybe it will. Maybe we will be able to correct damaged DNA using gene therapy.
I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper.
I think there is a very good chance we will have robots that can change diapers in 35 years. I don't consider having my diaper changed by a robot to be any more degrading than to have a self driving car take me places I want to go.
It's not just that these kinds of designs aren't as polished. They are limited and architecture dependent even when they are done "correctly". An atomic memory access in one architecture may not be atomic in another, or you may need to write your own assembly instructions to get the atomic instruction you need on a particular architecture. They are limited in that they don't provide a way for the thread to signal to the OS that they are just waiting and don't need to consume any more cycles until the resource they are waiting for is available.
I do think it's good to try to attempt these sorts of synchronization hacks, if only to run into all the problems first hand and to better appreciate better solutions (i.e. OS level synchronization primitives). I don't consider these types of locks to be less polished versions of good solutions, I consider them to be fatally flawed.
And as I said. I don't think thread synchronization is an insanely difficult concept. But it must be at least a little tricky for the simple fact that that it was invented by one of the most famous computer scientists in history rather than simply the first person who thought about the problem for a few hours.
Also, even if I agree that thread synchronization has a simple solution (i.e. OS level sync primitives), with this one example, I don't see how you can say that most well defined problems in computer science have simple solutions, unless you are going to say that every problem without an easy solution is not well defined.
But my counter point would be that many operating systems have been built in C, and people who rely too much on "modern compilers" often don't know what's really happening. I cut my teeth doing OS-level programming in C at the interrupt-handler level. Good times.
Linux is written in C. Python (a 4th generation language) is written in C. Lots of important stuff is written in C. I started out with C debugging kernel, BSP, driver bugs on real time embedded systems. There certainly is a time and a place for C, if even just for dealing with legacy code, but there are too many people who only know how to use C, and refuse to use the advantages of other languages, and write UI code that looks like a kernel driver.
I'm not saying people should start all new projects in C, but a good solid grounding in C really does give one a good perspective on what's really happening in the innards of your code. It's about as close to "bare metal" programming as you can get without assembly.
I totally agree. In school I learned assembly, logic circuit design, and designed a whole computer (ALU, memory controller, bus, etc) that implemented a defined machine instruction set. I even wrote a recursive merge sort in assembly that was compiled by an assembler that I wrote and ran it on our own computers as the final test that we did it right.
I think knowing the innards of how computers work really helps you appreciate and properly use high level design.
Because, "Pointers to pointers to printf()-like functions" was a pretty nifty language feature sometimes. You could do some pretty neat things in C.
You really could, I sometimes miss writing it, but I sure don't miss reading other people's C code. I read C++ code all the time that is just c code wrapped in a class with one method. It's no wonder these people think C++ is stupid, they're doing it wrong.
1. Math is not a science. Math is math. Science is an endeavor that relies on math. Math doesn't rely on science.
2. You clearly don't know what liberal arts are.
3. Even with all the tools at your fingertips, you can't even be bothered to do some basic research before displaying your ignorance in public, albeit anonymously.
Nearly all solutions are simple given a well defined problem.
Nearly all solutions are simple given a well defined problem. I tend to "reinvent" solutions all the time. When I started playing with multi-threading, I was toying around with lots of different ways to handle locking and trying to safely handle sync without locks. Seems everything that I discovered on my own has already been done before, typically decades ago back in the 60s and 70s, but it doesn't mean I had to have someone else "discover" it for me. The solutions were blindingly obvious for anyone who spent a few hours thinking about the issues.
I'm skeptical when someone makes a claim like "I would have invented X if it wasn't already invented.", but lets say for the sake of argument that it's true. Nearly all computer problems are easily solved by someone as smart as yourself. Go solve some unsolved problems. Win the next Turing Award and become a multimillionaire.
Furthermore, when you say you were "playing around with different ways of handling locking", am I correct in assuming that you were just using existing operating system constructs rather than writing your own operating system and thread synchronization constructs?
I made a read write lock out of some mutexes as well. I don't have any delusions that I would have invented the semaphore before dijkstra if I were born earlier.
I don't need to have managed a project to know that sometimes an engineers skills might be more important than the skills of his manager. All I am saying is that when this is the case, it would be nice to have compensation reflective of that.
I am offered a management position every year, and I know that I as a manager would be less valuable than me as an engineer, so there is one example right there.
I never made any generalizations. You seem to be the one making a generalization that I must dislike wisdom if I dislike stubborn old programmers, by assuming that every old programmer is wise.
And yet you complain about Microsoft always taking up all the gains in CPU/memory speeds?
I haven't complained about microsoft's software engineering approach in about a decade. I have an 8 year old computer that still runs windows 7 just fine. It probably runs windows 8 perfectly fine too, I just don't like the UI.