Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.
It is refreshing to hear another opinion on life from someone that has been through it.
Happiness is quite possible without having a child, but the trouble on slashdot is people making it a dichotomy between children and money. Having a loving wife and no kids is a lot different than being a lonely misanthropic miser with a lot of money in the bank but no love.
Immortality for your genes isn't worth very much. It gives you a legacy, but you don't get to see it.
I'm young enough that I've a chance, if only a very slim one, that immortality-tech will become available within my lifetime. Body transplant, cryonics that actually works, maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading. It's a long shot, but it's the only chance I see. If not, well... not much I can do about it.
No offence, but you're a fucking retard who's swallowed the Kurzweilian Koolaid.
So not wanting offspring due to the Life Ruination they cause is unreasonable according to you? Perhaps becoming a parent induces a sort of mild mental illness.
I think slashdot should follow facebook's example and have a minimum age limit. It gets pretty tedious reading twelve year olds' inane posturings.
The older you get the more you appreciate your children.
I don't like this absolute. Mostly because it's not necessarily true.
Yes it is. Children are far more interesting once they've grown up, unless you're an infantile baby hugger, in which case you might just as well keep buying kittens, as they're far cuter and better value than human babies.
Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?
If you judge your life purely on financial considerations, you will die an unhappy, friendless old man. Misers are among the most miserable of human beings.
I wouldn't. Seriously. Say your wife has a chat while you're reading your email and the ads are full of requests from hot teenage cam girls to get jiggy with them, it's much easier if you can just call it general spam.
So what you're basically saying is that you'd rather pay for a product just because it's easier to use than the free one?
Well, yes.
Photoshop is a bad example because it's really quite expensive (350GBP at a quick glance, and you can buy a laptop for that) for someone who's not a professional graphics person, but in general I'd pay a reasonable amount for something that was noticeably better than a free alternative.
If the philosophy of FLOSS can be reduced to "it's not very good, but at least it's free" then it's lost the battle. But it's better than that.
It exists. You can download Photoshop CS3 from Adobe for free.
[citation needed].
I know there was a story on BoingBoing a couple of weeks ago where Adobe mistakenly let you download a full old version instead of an update or something. But I can see no evidence on Adobe's website that they have free full versions of ANYTHING to download. The only free versions of Adobe products (even something like Photoshop Elements which you used to get for free with scanners or cheap cameras) I have ever seen are pirated versions.
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.
Ipso facto gimp = winner.
You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
That's a stupid argument. Is a Nissan Micra better than a Lamborghini just because it's hundreds of thousands cheaper?
If you've got people with MBAs doing administrative paperwork, that either means you've got a ridiculously over-qualified workforce, or else MBAs aren't worth anything as a qualification.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe heirs should get any reward for your invention.
So why should they inherit your money and property either?
I was mightily confused by the concept of Rembrandt suing Facebook. Weird timeline.
Apparently.
still being tied to your ex-wife by child support long after the divorce
Not everyone gets divorced. And why precisely shouldn't you pay child support?
Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.
It is refreshing to hear another opinion on life from someone that has been through it.
Happiness is quite possible without having a child, but the trouble on slashdot is people making it a dichotomy between children and money. Having a loving wife and no kids is a lot different than being a lonely misanthropic miser with a lot of money in the bank but no love.
Speak for yourself. Where I live, people look after their parents.
Immortality for your genes isn't worth very much. It gives you a legacy, but you don't get to see it.
I'm young enough that I've a chance, if only a very slim one, that immortality-tech will become available within my lifetime. Body transplant, cryonics that actually works, maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading. It's a long shot, but it's the only chance I see. If not, well... not much I can do about it.
No offence, but you're a fucking retard who's swallowed the Kurzweilian Koolaid.
So not wanting offspring due to the Life Ruination they cause is unreasonable according to you? Perhaps becoming a parent induces a sort of mild mental illness.
I think slashdot should follow facebook's example and have a minimum age limit. It gets pretty tedious reading twelve year olds' inane posturings.
If you did not have kids your life would be radically different. You would have things you DO NOT have now.
Things do not make you happy. People do.
You do not need to have children to be happy, but you need something other than more material possessions.
The older you get the more you appreciate your children.
I don't like this absolute. Mostly because it's not necessarily true.
Yes it is. Children are far more interesting once they've grown up, unless you're an infantile baby hugger, in which case you might just as well keep buying kittens, as they're far cuter and better value than human babies.
Economically, today, children are a terrible idea.
If you run your whole life like a fucking bank account, I truly feel sorry for you.
people who have children tend to be less happy
Who says?
Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?
If you judge your life purely on financial considerations, you will die an unhappy, friendless old man. Misers are among the most miserable of human beings.
Simple --- sign up with Microsoft's email service so that Microsoft can rummage through your emails instead of google.
Because I am clever, I have avoided all these potential security nightmares by restricting my internet usage purely to Facebook.
I'd rather non-invasive and targeted ads
I wouldn't. Seriously. Say your wife has a chat while you're reading your email and the ads are full of requests from hot teenage cam girls to get jiggy with them, it's much easier if you can just call it general spam.
And "tiny" is a derogatory word for fat people!
No it's not.
I imagine your average geek would pronounce it "she bang" for comic effect.
Hmm...new one on me, but then I guess I've not known anyone that was into sex bondage.
You are aware that there's an invention called the movies, and on this invention they show films like Pulp Fiction, right?
Linux is better than Notepad
If you're trying to start a flamewar here, you're doing it all wrong.
What programmer or photoshop person even READS anymore?
I mean really?
Anything I wanna know how to do in Gimp or Photoshop I can most likely just google it.
In fact, the author of this book probably google'd everything that is in it. So its plagiarism.
So when you google something, the information just flows magically from your computer into your brain without any of that pesky reading nonsense?
You are so cool, you're like Neon in the Matrix with those glowy 0s and 1s flowing through his fingertips.
So what you're basically saying is that you'd rather pay for a product just because it's easier to use than the free one?
Well, yes.
Photoshop is a bad example because it's really quite expensive (350GBP at a quick glance, and you can buy a laptop for that) for someone who's not a professional graphics person, but in general I'd pay a reasonable amount for something that was noticeably better than a free alternative.
If the philosophy of FLOSS can be reduced to "it's not very good, but at least it's free" then it's lost the battle. But it's better than that.
It exists. You can download Photoshop CS3 from Adobe for free.
[citation needed].
I know there was a story on BoingBoing a couple of weeks ago where Adobe mistakenly let you download a full old version instead of an update or something. But I can see no evidence on Adobe's website that they have free full versions of ANYTHING to download. The only free versions of Adobe products (even something like Photoshop Elements which you used to get for free with scanners or cheap cameras) I have ever seen are pirated versions.
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars. Ipso facto gimp = winner. You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
That's a stupid argument. Is a Nissan Micra better than a Lamborghini just because it's hundreds of thousands cheaper?
Yes, but if something is "big in enterprise" it's unlikely to get replaced overnight on a whim.
If you've got people with MBAs doing administrative paperwork, that either means you've got a ridiculously over-qualified workforce, or else MBAs aren't worth anything as a qualification.