The notion that a steady job with bennies is THE GOAL or more important than your other values is a trap. Go for what you value most. I doubt very much that is only or primarily a steady paycheck at the cost of other values.
So you are only a fool if you gave up what you value more for what you value less. But a whole lot of people are fools for taking and keeping the jobs they have for the same reason.
Would someone please explain why "portals" matter and why google should want to have that be part of its business?
Is the modern way to riches to do one thing very well, so well your name becomes a verb meaning to do that, and then to take your earned wealth and attempt to become all things to all people? Would someone please explain how this is the right thing?
It has little to do with government vs private. It has to do with efficiently solving a problem widely instead of milking each tiny little increment of capability for outrageous fees and thus imposing huge unnecessary drag on all of us. Remember also that the competitive strength of this country and health of our econom depends strongly on ubiquitous bandwidth. Technically it is not hard to provide it. It is just damn hard to meter it too death.
but none of the big corps provide city wide coverage at wifi speeds. They want to nickel and dime us to death and make many would be apps, products, employers stillborn for lack of ubiquitos bandwidth. What if a private group provided free bandwidth? Would they be able to block that?
What power does a French court have over Google? If I am searching for a particular comlany or product I want to see others related or competing generally speaking. If yeople don't like it then let them use osmething else. But don't try to force the desires of the view using goverrnment power much less foreign government power.
The idea that all the really needed or important software is mostly already written is in the same category as all those other wierd claims like that only 6 computers would be needed in all of the US or that home users had no software needs beyond b;lancing their checkbooks or storing a few recipes. I certainly agre though that anyone who believes all the needed softw;re has aiready been addressed has no business being in this field.
If you have done that many commercial programs from original concept to successful deployment then why on earth do you call yourself just "a programmer". You obviously function at an architect/design/creative level beyond that. So consider a few things: 1) if you have a great idea or two start a company; 2) upgrade your title and self-image. Ask for and expect more accordingly; 3) do a product or two that will make it at least as shareware and get an independent name for yourself; 4) come up with a good hosted app for (1) or (3) and spin it out onto the Web. Get financing to grow it out; 5) do some consulting. you have the chops. Use the $$$ to finance (1) or (2) or (3) and/or more education/training or just more time off.
The reason I loved it was for the System Services and Runtime Library. You could do things in VMS that no Unix box could do unless you wrote the plumbing yourself from scratch. I had mixed feelings moving to Ultrix. It was great to be in a good Unix environment and all but I missed a great deal of the power of the VMS libraries. Dunno why DEC didn't port them but I heard that a lot of the libs were in assembler.
Who the heck says it would only be available for a few? Several ideas for this technology would be about as expensive as a polio vaccine when fully developed.
Also, using assumptions about our economics staying the same in a very quickly changing world and thus being what we use to decide whether such a far reaching change is permissible is totally bogus thinking. In 20-30 years the entire face of work, how people make a living and so on will change more drastically than most of us can imagine.
There are many relatively dystopian or utopian fantasies about what it would be like. But the truth is we have no idea until we actually try it.
Wouldn't it be great to be righteously pissed off but vigorous enough to actually do something about it rather than moan and groan for the old times that weren't so great when you were actually there? Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to question your old assumptions, rework your conditioning and understand where your un-ease is justified and is from what you have learned that actually is true and be able to do something about that?
Do you call disintegrate and dying in front of their eyes an act of love? Really? Why are you "in their way"? Elders are generally only "in the way" because of ill health due to aging. How does your continuing vigor have anything at all to do with your kids becoming vigorous active full adults also?
The world is changing so rapidly that there is plenty of advantage that the younger generations have in way of not having to unlearn a bunch of obsolete assumptions and concerns. The older generations will have to scramble to keep up even with perfect health and all those years of continuity.
Think outside of the old box a bit. Your life could very well depend on it.
What makes you think many would be interested in parenting in their 100+ years? Why is it better for resources to be used by new people with less experience and accumulated knowledge than people already alive? Why is it remotely moral to require existing people to die if it is avoidable? What matter of riches will we not be able to create (it is not static you know) with that many additional productive creative years?
And no, the advances will not be just for the rich.
Should we? Should we continue to condemn every single human being including ourselves and our progeny to start deteriorating about as quickly as they begin to get it together? Should we continue to condemn every single person to a sudden or long drawn out painful horror of a death after a mere 70-120 years? Should we have never bothered to develop any of the advances that allowed us to get past the natural life expectancy average of about 150 years ago of around 30-40 years?
Should we? Of course we should! If we aren't about live and having it and enjoying it more abundantly then what the hell is the point?
Clue. Compute how much you pay into SS per year. Include what your employer pays. Compute the same amount fed into money market over your working career. Compare total expected payout if you live to be even 100 to payout of your minimally invested same amount. The difference tells you Part 1 of why SS is a huge ripoff. There are many other parts like that the amount "saved" for your retirement is really spent by the feds and replaced with IOUs on future tax receipts.
It really is depressing how many idiots actually still think SS is a wonderful thing and the only way to prepare for retirement.
What a great reason to resist life extension! It would break Social Security. HAHAHA. It is already broken. Living 1000 years or more in full health and capabilities of course means that being full able to support yourself.
Much of the rhetoric on SS doesn't really discuss the numbers or the implications except by hearsay. My take on the article, the state of SS and what should eventually be done follows.
SS comments
a) current benefits are paid from current withholdings This immediately says the program is in arrears as ideally current benefits would be paid form the money taxed from the current retirees before retirement. Also note that if the number of workers decreases significantly relative to the number of retirees then the system will not meet its liabilities. When the Baby Boomers retire the number of retirees will roughly double, giving ~100m recipients. Giving them a modest round number of $1000/month each gives us $100billion / month in expenditures or $1.2 trillion/year. I believe the current SS cap is around $80K subject to ~15% tax giving $12K/worker-year. Thus the system would require 100,000,000 workers contributing todays maximum amount. Sorry, but we simply will not have that. Also the average contribution would be roughly the average wage that iirc is around $40k maximum giving the need for 200M workers to meet costs when the boomers retire. Sure looks like a real problem to me, roughly on the order of the system being ~$700,000,000,000 in arrears per year. The notion that no change at all is necessary over the next 75 years is wishful thinking out on the lunatic fringe.
b) Treasury securities are themselves little more than IOUs on future tax receipts. Fewere workers give leass tax receipts. This is without even mentioning record trade and federal deficits. A fair case can be made that this country following its present course will leak high tech jobs just as fast as it has leaked manufacturing jobs. Under this scenario the situation is even more dire. The so-called surplus isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Large movements out of foreign investment in the very same securities are sometimes witnessed even today.
c) The notion that the government will repay its borrowing from Social Security "in fifteen years" is ludricous. The idea that it will do so by borrowing is criminally insane. Borrowing is what got the government and we Americans into the current mess. It is interesting that the so-called surplus is not only IOUs on future taxes, but also on the good intention of the government to pay back the money it has ripped off from the forced pension funds of its own citizens. And this program is held up as a model of compassion!
d) There is no question that even a fraction of the money taken for SS, if invested quite conservatively, even in a money market, would easily meet the needs of the individual retiree over say 20 years of employment, much less the 30-40 commonly worked. So it is immediately obvious that the current system is a ripoff and drain on the wealth and well-being of all Americans. The question should be how to back out of something that is known to be such a rip and switch to a more direct individual investment plan as quickly and painlessly as possible. Anything less is a disservice to all of us.
Probably not. Less solar energy at earth surface gives less evaporation gives less salt concentration thus less downwelling to drive the major ocean thermal currents (thermohaline cycle) that keep Europe warm. The most likely result of all this is a new Ice Age.
I don't see any reason this opens up any security issues not already present. How does being able to quickly find your stuff make you less secure than when you were fumbling around your oh so clever directory structure or attempting to combine grep and find?
Free desktop search opens up a lot of possible applications using it to carry part of the load. I would bet these companies have more than a few such in mind. Also, brand/stack loyalty is nothing to sneeze at. Personally I think the better question is whether these desktop search offerings have APIs accessible to third party vendors. Would be start-ups want to know!
Simple. a) Appear to be doing SOMETHING to KEEP US SAFE when actually doing worse than nothing; b) criminalize civilians whenever possible; c) check just how bloody gullible the public and media is.
With potential disaster of this magnitude we should do whatever we can to prevent it. In this case it may be plausible to dismantle this menance before it blows. If it is plausible then we should do so asap. It isn't often we get to save 100 million lives with one bit of engineering.
The observe effect at the micro level does not translate to the macro level being open to observer determination. The odd way the quantum level operates is used to justify all matter of nutty beliefs and ideas. Those who responded with some darwinian (at the quantum level yet) justification bordering on "consensus reality" should have their credentials as scientists lifted.
So you would rather that humanity die out completely than take the "wrong values" into what is largely uninhabitable wastelands? Quite the humanitarian aren't ya?
Slashdot Mirror
The notion that a steady job with bennies is THE GOAL or more important than your other values is a trap. Go for what you value most. I doubt very much that is only or primarily a steady paycheck at the cost of other values.
So you are only a fool if you gave up what you value more for what you value less. But a whole lot of people are fools for taking and keeping the jobs they have for the same reason.
Would someone please explain why "portals" matter and why google should want to have that be part of its business?
Is the modern way to riches to do one thing very well, so well your name becomes a verb meaning to do that, and then to take your earned wealth and attempt to become all things to all people? Would someone please explain how this is the right thing?
It has little to do with government vs private. It has to do with efficiently solving a problem widely instead of milking each tiny little increment of capability for outrageous fees and thus imposing huge unnecessary drag on all of us. Remember also that the competitive strength of this country and health of our econom depends strongly on ubiquitous bandwidth. Technically it is not hard to provide it. It is just damn hard to meter it too death.
but none of the big corps provide city wide coverage at wifi speeds. They want to nickel and dime us to death and make many would be apps, products, employers stillborn for lack of ubiquitos bandwidth. What if a private group provided free bandwidth? Would they be able to block that?
What power does a French court have over Google? If I am searching for a particular comlany or product I want to see others related or competing generally speaking. If yeople don't like it then let them use osmething else. But don't try to force the desires of the view using goverrnment power much less foreign government power.
The idea that all the really needed or important software is mostly already written is in the same category as all those other wierd claims like that only 6 computers would be needed in all of the US or that home users had no software needs beyond b;lancing their checkbooks or storing a few recipes. I certainly agre though that anyone who believes all the needed softw;re has aiready been addressed has no business being in this field.
You are confused. Fraternal twins always have the same genetic structure.
Oh, more really significant scary data. Let's see "is committed PERHAPS". Gee, I am really alarmed now. PERHAPS aliens really do run George Bush.
I don't mean to belittle the problem but we do not need scare tactics and non-data.
If you have done that many commercial programs from original concept to successful deployment then why on earth do you call yourself just "a programmer". You obviously function at an architect/design/creative level beyond that. So consider a few things:
1) if you have a great idea or two start a company;
2) upgrade your title and self-image. Ask for and expect more accordingly;
3) do a product or two that will make it at least as shareware and get an independent name for yourself;
4) come up with a good hosted app for (1) or (3) and spin it out onto the Web. Get financing to grow it out;
5) do some consulting. you have the chops. Use the $$$ to finance (1) or (2) or (3) and/or more education/training or just more time off.
The reason I loved it was for the System Services and Runtime Library. You could do things in VMS that no Unix box could do unless you wrote the plumbing yourself from scratch. I had mixed feelings moving to Ultrix. It was great to be in a good Unix environment and all but I missed a great deal of the power of the VMS libraries. Dunno why DEC didn't port them but I heard that a lot of the libs were in assembler.
Who the heck says it would only be available for a few? Several ideas for this technology would be about as expensive as a polio vaccine when fully developed.
Also, using assumptions about our economics staying the same in a very quickly changing world and thus being what we use to decide whether such a far reaching change is permissible is totally bogus thinking. In 20-30 years the entire face of work, how people make a living and so on will change more drastically than most of us can imagine.
There are many relatively dystopian or utopian fantasies about what it would be like. But the truth is we have no idea until we actually try it.
Wouldn't it be great to be righteously pissed off but vigorous enough to actually do something about it rather than moan and groan for the old times that weren't so great when you were actually there? Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to question your old assumptions, rework your conditioning and understand where your un-ease is justified and is from what you have learned that actually is true and be able to do something about that?
Do you call disintegrate and dying in front of their eyes an act of love? Really? Why are you "in their way"? Elders are generally only "in the way" because of ill health due to aging. How does your continuing vigor have anything at all to do with your kids becoming vigorous active full adults also?
The world is changing so rapidly that there is plenty of advantage that the younger generations have in way of not having to unlearn a bunch of obsolete assumptions and concerns. The older generations will have to scramble to keep up even with perfect health and all those years of continuity.
Think outside of the old box a bit. Your life could very well depend on it.
What makes you think many would be interested in parenting in their 100+ years? Why is it better for resources to be used by new people with less experience and accumulated knowledge than people already alive? Why is it remotely moral to require existing people to die if it is avoidable? What matter of riches will we not be able to create (it is not static you know) with that many additional productive creative years?
And no, the advances will not be just for the rich.
Should we? Should we continue to condemn every single human being including ourselves and our progeny to start deteriorating about as quickly as they begin to get it together? Should we continue to condemn every single person to a sudden or long drawn out painful horror of a death after a mere 70-120 years? Should we have never bothered to develop any of the advances that allowed us to get past the natural life expectancy average of about 150 years ago of around 30-40 years?
Should we? Of course we should! If we aren't about live and having it and enjoying it more abundantly then what the hell is the point?
Clue. Compute how much you pay into SS per year. Include what your employer pays. Compute the same amount fed into money market over your working career. Compare total expected payout if you live to be even 100 to payout of your minimally invested same amount. The difference tells you Part 1 of why SS is a huge ripoff. There are many other parts like that the amount "saved" for your retirement is really spent by the feds and replaced with IOUs on future tax receipts.
It really is depressing how many idiots actually still think SS is a wonderful thing and the only way to prepare for retirement.
What a great reason to resist life extension! It would break Social Security. HAHAHA. It is already broken. Living 1000 years or more in full health and capabilities of course means that being full able to support yourself.
Much of the rhetoric on SS doesn't really discuss the numbers or the implications except by hearsay. My take on the article, the state of SS and what should eventually be done follows.
SS comments
a) current benefits are paid from current withholdings
This immediately says the program is in arrears as ideally current benefits would be paid form the money taxed from the current retirees before retirement. Also note that if the number of workers decreases significantly relative to the number of retirees then the system will not meet its liabilities. When the Baby Boomers retire the number of retirees will roughly double, giving ~100m recipients. Giving them a modest round number of $1000/month each gives us $100billion / month in expenditures or $1.2 trillion/year. I believe the current SS cap is around $80K subject to ~15% tax giving $12K/worker-year. Thus the system would require 100,000,000 workers contributing todays maximum amount. Sorry, but we simply will not have that. Also the average contribution would be roughly the average wage that iirc is around $40k maximum giving the need for 200M workers to meet costs when the boomers retire. Sure looks like a real problem to me, roughly on the order of the system being ~$700,000,000,000 in arrears per year. The notion that no change at all is necessary over the next 75 years is wishful thinking out on the lunatic fringe.
b) Treasury securities are themselves little more than IOUs on future tax receipts. Fewere workers give leass tax receipts. This is without even mentioning record trade and federal deficits. A fair case can be made that this country following its present course will leak high tech jobs just as fast as it has leaked manufacturing jobs. Under this scenario the situation is even more dire. The so-called surplus isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Large movements out of foreign investment in the very same securities are sometimes witnessed even today.
c) The notion that the government will repay its borrowing from Social Security "in fifteen years" is ludricous. The idea that it will do so by borrowing is criminally insane. Borrowing is what got the government and we Americans into the current mess. It is interesting that the so-called surplus is not only IOUs on future taxes, but also on the good intention of the government to pay back the money it has ripped off from the forced pension funds of its own citizens. And this program is held up as a model of compassion!
d) There is no question that even a fraction of the money taken for SS, if invested quite conservatively, even in a money market, would easily meet the needs of the individual retiree over say 20 years of employment, much less the 30-40 commonly worked. So it is immediately obvious that the current system is a ripoff and drain on the wealth and well-being of all Americans. The question should be how to back out of something that is known to be such a rip and switch to a more direct individual investment plan as quickly and painlessly as possible. Anything less is a disservice to all of us.
Probably not. Less solar energy at earth surface gives less evaporation gives less salt concentration thus less downwelling to drive the major ocean thermal currents (thermohaline cycle) that keep Europe warm. The most likely result of all this is a new Ice Age.
I don't see any reason this opens up any security issues not already present. How does being able to quickly find your stuff make you less secure than when you were fumbling around your oh so clever directory structure or attempting to combine grep and find?
Free desktop search opens up a lot of possible applications using it to carry part of the load. I would bet these companies have more than a few such in mind. Also, brand/stack loyalty is nothing to sneeze at. Personally I think the better question is whether these desktop search offerings have APIs accessible to third party vendors. Would be start-ups want to know!
Simple.
a) Appear to be doing SOMETHING to KEEP US SAFE when actually doing worse than nothing;
b) criminalize civilians whenever possible;
c) check just how bloody gullible the public and media is.
With potential disaster of this magnitude we should do whatever we can to prevent it. In this case it may be plausible to dismantle this menance before it blows. If it is plausible then we should do so asap. It isn't often we get to save 100 million lives with one bit of engineering.
The observe effect at the micro level does not translate to the macro level being open to observer determination. The odd way the quantum level operates is used to justify all matter of nutty beliefs and ideas. Those who responded with some darwinian (at the quantum level yet) justification bordering on "consensus reality" should have their credentials as scientists lifted.
So you would rather that humanity die out completely than take the "wrong values" into what is largely uninhabitable wastelands? Quite the humanitarian aren't ya?