|
I just know that when I was younger I wasn't any good at anything and then something happened when I got involved with computers and learned that I could actually make something.
That's when everything took off for me and I learned what being happy actually meant. Of course that is separate from money. Money doesn't make you happy, but of course not having enough of it can make you very sad. 
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever path led you to feel self-confident, and happy, I am happy you found it !
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
 Those that can do. Those that can't write about it. Then they write about it again. And again. And again. All such books are bollocks dressed up as wisdom in order to empty your coffers and swell the author's pockets. Snake oil is alive and well and just one-click away on Amazon.
|
|
|
|
|
I know there are a lot of slick-oil salesmen out there. I agree.
However, I now people who are so bummed out that they can't even take basic steps towards anything resembling success.
I was that way long ago when I started computer programming on my own with QuickBasic and QuickC.
I knew nothing and I was told by by public school teachers I'd never get anywhere because my math skills were so bad. I needed a plan until I could make my own plan and that is what I see the book as.
|
|
|
|
|
It might make you feel good to say that the top 20% of individuals work the hardest and therefor make the most money but that doesn't make it true
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/[^]
The fact is that hard work doesn't always translate into compensation. While it certainly is true that 20% of the workers produce 80% of the output, let's not fantasize that this productivity translates into high compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
Is your reasoning then that we should confiscate the top 1%'s wealth and hand it to other people?
Of course those who work hardest and do the greatest work of all are not always compensated the best.
I don't know if you've noticed but the world isn't fair and even the rotten people who claim they will make it fair will generally only make it "fair" for themselves.
The things to focus on are:
1. strive for excellence
2. get skills that make you valuable
Then, you are more likely to be able to :
1. go to jobs that appreciate you and reward you.
2. leave jobs that are terrible
That's all. Nothing more.
EDIT:
I read over that stupid little article and I see that all it does is further the misery of those who are miserable. It offers them no help. Instead it offers only the journalists (who is making money writing the article) more misery, in it's own words:
If the Occupy movement does nothing else, it has at least introduced a new set of terms into the American vocabulary
Oh, yes, those miserable people need more miserable words to describe their miserable lives.
Idiot journalist! Why not do something to help them make a difference in the world?
Oh, no they cannot be called upon to actually work to earn their own way.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I didn't say any of those things; you are inferring. I'm merely stating the fact that hard work very rarely translates into high compensation and the idea that hard work leads to success is a myth.
Wealth and success have much more to do with who you know and what opportunities you had available to you than all your hard work, effort, and technical skill combined.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, sorry. My point is that the people who tend to try to make things fair also contribute to the problem by inspiring people to do less rather than believe they can actually build a life of their own.
It's frustrating since I too was on my own and considered a loser by all measures of society. Then the (almost) universal freedom of learning to program computers actually allowed me to move toward excellence -- though definitely not riches.
|
|
|
|
|
And I have no doubt that your hard work, dedication, and diligence contributed (if not led entirely) to your current success. I'm no social justice warrior myself, but I have a hard time reconciling the fact that many of my peers, who work long hours framing houses or laying brick or wiring commercial real estate earn a tiny fraction of my salary. Ive happened upon great opportunities in the IT industry and I'm grateful for that fact, but I bear no illusion that because my industry pays a substantially better wage that it somehow makes me a better citizen, friend, or human being.
|
|
|
|
|
There are way too many factors to consider to figure out one way or the other.
No one said that people who make more money are better people. There are terrible people and good people within every level of the economic hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, having read the entire thread, this one paints the picture.
First, understand that how much we get paid = Salary + Rent.
Michael Jordan, for example, made a normal Salary, but a huge RENT.
Rent in this economic sense is the "additional" you pay for a particular piece of property.
In Jordans case, it is how much more you are willing to pay to have his name attached.
The same thing works in every career. There is a base amount of salary it takes to put someone in the chair. The additional amount a company is willing to pay is to get the Specific Features and Benefits that a particular PERSON, DEGREE or SKILL SET brings to the table. This is the RENT side of the equation.
Everyone's goal should be to make the rent side over the salary side. Big Data, right now, pays a bigger rent! Salary is what you make to show up.
Now, your friend, who is a hard working "hard working construction worker" is working a LOW RENT Job.
And a series of them. And with PERSPECTIVE, working TOO HARD at it.
The challenge is that the Salary portion is beat down from competition, and then there is little left to pay RENT on. Either the framing of the house is decent or not. It is not making/breaking the builder.
My father is a Master Electrician. We grew up quite poor. And over time, I realized because he was more interested in being busy, than making a good RENT, and charging more. He would do work so reasonably, he would often lose money on a job, but felt good about it. (He grew up on a farm, and valued hard work over cash. I grew up pretty poor, and valued hard work + cash. I have plenty of both now, LOL).
You friend is choosing to do work that does not pay well. Then he is choosing to work harder at it.
He needs to change how he charges, or who he works for, or what he wants to do. But I bet he loves what he does, and he is happy probably doing it.
But make no mistake about it. You are getting paid RENT for your ability to work with computers. I can't hit a baseball, or shoot a basketball very well. We all have our own talents. Some talents can get paid well, some cannot (think babysitter).
But the caveat to your last sentence is that your friend is a good friend, citizen, etc. He probably just wants for money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree on the problem statement[^], but I don't necessary agree on the solution as it's just the standard reaction worthy of politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
The vast benefits of robot cars are greater than the negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Only within a closed system. And it will never be a closed system.
|
|
|
|
|
The first stage will be autonomous cars. And the benefits will vastly outweigh the disadvantages. No more DUIs. Old people will be mobile. Valet parking everywhere. Sleep in the back seat while driving to California. However, airlines will probably suffer.
The second stage will be cooperative systems. When a robot car merges onto a freeway, where other robot cars are driving bumper-to-bumper at 100 mph safely, they will create a gap to let the new car in.
I wish I could live long enough to enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't refute my comment; it supports it.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the problem of circling cars will be self-limiting:
1. The cost of petrol (gas) will eventually outweigh the savings in time
2. If the congestion is high enough, the time waiting for the car to finish its circle will also outweigh the savings achieved by not parking
Furthermore, the congestion argument is partly bogus, too:
Once the car has deposited Dad at work, it will be travelling back to the suburbs against traffic. This will increase congestion leaving the city, but will not affect those entering it.
The only part of the thesis that may be true is the increased petrol consumption due to having to make two trips/day into the city. The cost of this will be offset by only needing one car, as opposed to two or more, per family.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 1. The cost of petrol (gas) will eventually outweigh the savings in time
I believe the vast majority of self driving cars will be electric or at least hybrid. And then you need to define what your time is worth.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 2. If the congestion is high enough, the time waiting for the car to finish its circle will also outweigh the savings achieved by not parking
If the congestion is high enough it won't matter at all, will it? So people will save the money of parking.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: This will increase congestion leaving the city, but will not affect those entering it.
That would depend on where you live, if you live in the outskirts of a singular town that would be mostly true, but if you live in a metropolitan area it could be quite different.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with many (most?) of these analyses is that they focus on one variable (congestion, in this case), and ignore the many other variables that can affect people's choices.
For example:
1. Given that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture than gasoline cars, how do the economics of a dumb gasoline car compare to those of a smart electric car? What, if any, is the crossover point?
2. At what stage does it become more economical for the individual to have one smart car, rather than two dumb cars?
3. At present only a small percentage of cars are electric. What happens to the demand for electricity (and therefore - to its price) when most cars are electric?
...
I submit that these "side issues" will tend to dominate people's choices at least as much as congestion.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Re 2 : Will dumb cars continue to have more prestige than smart cars?
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Will dumb cars continue to have more prestige than smart cars?
Well it works for celebrities... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 1. Given that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture than gasoline cars, how do the economics of a dumb gasoline car compare to those of a smart electric car? What, if any, is the crossover point?
Depending on how you compare you'll get a breakeven at around 5-10 years (give or take depending on whether you're pro or against  ). The problem with the electric car is that the second hand value will be crap since the battery pack will need to be exchanged after that.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 2. At what stage does it become more economical for the individual to have one smart car, rather than two dumb cars?
Here you have serious economy in numbers. Smart cars cost a lot to develop, but not much extra to produce.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 3. At present only a small percentage of cars are electric. What happens to the demand for electricity (and therefore - to its price) when most cars are electric?
This is an interesting one. People are of the general belief that electric cars are efficient, and the answer is: it depends on how you calculate it.
A synchronous electric engine has an efficiency above 90%, LiIon batteries 86% according to Tesla, the grid is at 92%.
So far all is well, but then comes the problem. Electric cars would be an additional drain the electric grid. And since all efficient power sources such as hydro power is more or less already built out.
So the most probable power source would actually be coal power at an efficiency of about 33%. All in all an efficiency of around 24%. Still better than petrol, but not at all by as much as some people claim.
I'm fully aware that there will be people that claim that all added electric power will come from wind and sun, but it's not overly probable in most countries.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I submit that these "side issues" will tend to dominate people's choices at least as much as congestion.
Personally I think the vast majority will make their choices purely on economy and comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a stupid idea. I'd rather focus on telecommuting and innovative ways of connecting people.
|
|
|
|
|
Great for work, but what about going to the store? The bar? The Theater? The Mall? Going to a friend's place? Going on a date?
The real world isn't a Turn Based Strategy Game. You don't have to decide on one course of research for the entire nation at the cost of all others. There's plenty of people working on telecommuting and other communication technologies, and the skills needed for making a self driving car are different from the skills needed for those technologies. Self driving cars are far from a "stupid idea". Any problems with them are offset by the problems of the other options. Everything will have problems. Nothing is perfect.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
