This is a clear case of survivor bias. You worked hard, that's obvious, but lots of people start from conditions as bad as yours, work as hard as you did, and fail. Your attitude didn't save you. You either were unusually good at making good choices, or you got lucky, or both.
I'm not trying to tear you down here. You obviously worked hard and accomplished a lot, and you can be proud of that. What I'm saying is that your story is not applicable to most people.
Sweden is an excellent example of the misuse of "socialism". Sweden's economy is capitalist, not socialist. Sweden gets called "socialist" a lot because they take care of each other.
Lower pay doesn't equal more stressful.
Poor management of money equals more stressful.
My primary money management technique has been to earn lots of it and not spend it all. Easy and reasonably effective, under the circumstances. If an unexpected expense comes up, I either accept it into the money stream or I pull some money out of the ever-growing savings. I can do impulse purchases as long as I don't get too silly about it. If I lost my job, I'd be fine.
If I didn't make much money, I'd have to budget carefully, and sometimes the budgeted amounts would be insufficient to the need. I'd have to worry about unexpected expenses. I'd be in trouble if I went a few weeks without a job. It sounds a lot more stressful to me.
Idealist or not, he's good at spotting problems before they come up. His "Right to Read" essay predated the Kindle. He's been on top of many problems because he was there before there was a real problem.
He did make a plan on how to make software Free. It didn't work as well as he'd hoped, but has caused a whole lot of good things to happen.
True, but I've never had a job where I couldn't decide where in the country to live, or one that was likely to get me shot at, especially without the option of hitting the dirt and waiting for people who knew what they were doing to deal with the shooters.
Frighteningly, there are those far from the Light who use neither vim nor emacs. Obviously we need a crusade or two.
Seriously, if you look back in history, revolutionary movements often tended to adopt a local heresy as justification for their actions and to provide a bigger "us-them" boundary. The battles between Spain and the Ottomans for control of the Mediterranean in the 1500s were easily justified as Christian vs. Muslim, but they were mostly just Great Power struggles.
I know some well-educated people who are religiously very devout. One of them blows up at people who annoy him too much while remaining theologically correct.
What education is likely to do is reduce the role of religion in governance, which I consider a Good Thing about education. Organized religion and politics should not mix.
Are you seriously advocating that the US and other Western countries should pick winners and losers in civil war, and send troops in to enforce that? That's the sort of thing that got us into a lot of this mess in the first place.
Why the hell would they continue with a more open platform if consumers accept their attempts at stooping lower still?
A large number of consumers won't stand for the walled garden. They've got software that does what they want that won't be available from the Windows Store for whatever reason.
Our company relies on software we write in-house to function. Take that away, and we go bust real fast. We have absolutely no plans to ever distribute the software. A computer that only runs stuff from the Windows Store is as useful to our main operations as used kitty litter.
My one experience with something like the Windows Store was to fire up Minesweeper on my new Win10 laptop. What came up was lame, and it had an offer for me to pay money to not get ads with Minesweeper.
If we want a walled garden, there is already Apple products
The walled garden is iOS only. I expect laptops and desktops to be more open.
There are two reasons people buy windows machines: they're what's sitting on the shelf, and to run Windows-compatible software. (Businesses have another reason, to keep their systems mostly uniform.) It would be hard to believe Microsoft would throw away the second reason, had Microsoft not done other boneheaded things in the recent past.
Open Source is not itself concerned with making all software non-proprietary. That's more a Free Software thing, with Stallman's plan to build up a corpus of GPLed software that would be too tempting to pass up. Stallman considers permissive licenses (and public domain) to be Free..
What the permissive licenses do is allow someone to make changes to software and use them freely. I don't know that any of them require changes to be divulged (I haven't checked the Affero GPLv3 recently), since none of them require distribution, and most software is for private use and is not distributed.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm going to get off the hook from having a job and supporting myself in a little under two years.
Stress, in the proper amount, is good for productivity. I'd rather be challenged by my job than not, and challenges come with stress.
Personally, I took a look at my manager's schedule and it reaffirmed my intention to never be in management.
For quite a few people, drinking is extremely dangerous. The easiest way to deal with serious alcoholism is to not drink.
Anyone who wants me to get drunk is neither my friend nor my ally, but someone who wants to sacrifice my well-being for their own purposes.
This is a clear case of survivor bias. You worked hard, that's obvious, but lots of people start from conditions as bad as yours, work as hard as you did, and fail. Your attitude didn't save you. You either were unusually good at making good choices, or you got lucky, or both.
I'm not trying to tear you down here. You obviously worked hard and accomplished a lot, and you can be proud of that. What I'm saying is that your story is not applicable to most people.
Sweden is an excellent example of the misuse of "socialism". Sweden's economy is capitalist, not socialist. Sweden gets called "socialist" a lot because they take care of each other.
I get clean water on tap because it's supplied by the government. Seriously. Capitalism has very little to do with it.
However, limited liability corporations are pretty much necessary in an economy of this size, even though they mess up the free markets.
My primary money management technique has been to earn lots of it and not spend it all. Easy and reasonably effective, under the circumstances. If an unexpected expense comes up, I either accept it into the money stream or I pull some money out of the ever-growing savings. I can do impulse purchases as long as I don't get too silly about it. If I lost my job, I'd be fine.
If I didn't make much money, I'd have to budget carefully, and sometimes the budgeted amounts would be insufficient to the need. I'd have to worry about unexpected expenses. I'd be in trouble if I went a few weeks without a job. It sounds a lot more stressful to me.
There was an open source culture back then. It's just that it's incredibly cheaper to buy a computer today than it was in the 1960s.
We have a similar subculture in the computer fields, and that's mostly due to Stallman.
Idealist or not, he's good at spotting problems before they come up. His "Right to Read" essay predated the Kindle. He's been on top of many problems because he was there before there was a real problem.
He did make a plan on how to make software Free. It didn't work as well as he'd hoped, but has caused a whole lot of good things to happen.
Yeah, and nobody knew how complicated health care was, either. I'm completely unsurprised by Trump's Presidency.
It would appear that you're real fuzzy on "war crime" and "complicit".
True, but I've never had a job where I couldn't decide where in the country to live, or one that was likely to get me shot at, especially without the option of hitting the dirt and waiting for people who knew what they were doing to deal with the shooters.
Frighteningly, there are those far from the Light who use neither vim nor emacs. Obviously we need a crusade or two.
Seriously, if you look back in history, revolutionary movements often tended to adopt a local heresy as justification for their actions and to provide a bigger "us-them" boundary. The battles between Spain and the Ottomans for control of the Mediterranean in the 1500s were easily justified as Christian vs. Muslim, but they were mostly just Great Power struggles.
I know some well-educated people who are religiously very devout. One of them blows up at people who annoy him too much while remaining theologically correct.
What education is likely to do is reduce the role of religion in governance, which I consider a Good Thing about education. Organized religion and politics should not mix.
Are you seriously advocating that the US and other Western countries should pick winners and losers in civil war, and send troops in to enforce that? That's the sort of thing that got us into a lot of this mess in the first place.
A large number of consumers won't stand for the walled garden. They've got software that does what they want that won't be available from the Windows Store for whatever reason.
Our company relies on software we write in-house to function. Take that away, and we go bust real fast. We have absolutely no plans to ever distribute the software. A computer that only runs stuff from the Windows Store is as useful to our main operations as used kitty litter.
That's a rather tall order, and Windows S is not about becoming user-friendly.
My one experience with something like the Windows Store was to fire up Minesweeper on my new Win10 laptop. What came up was lame, and it had an offer for me to pay money to not get ads with Minesweeper.
The walled garden is iOS only. I expect laptops and desktops to be more open.
There are two reasons people buy windows machines: they're what's sitting on the shelf, and to run Windows-compatible software. (Businesses have another reason, to keep their systems mostly uniform.) It would be hard to believe Microsoft would throw away the second reason, had Microsoft not done other boneheaded things in the recent past.
Open Source is not itself concerned with making all software non-proprietary. That's more a Free Software thing, with Stallman's plan to build up a corpus of GPLed software that would be too tempting to pass up. Stallman considers permissive licenses (and public domain) to be Free..
What the permissive licenses do is allow someone to make changes to software and use them freely. I don't know that any of them require changes to be divulged (I haven't checked the Affero GPLv3 recently), since none of them require distribution, and most software is for private use and is not distributed.
Except that the relative value of "in the hand" and "in the bush" changes significantly with different definitions of "cock".