Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They know nothing else.

That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.

Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!

They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.

I remember those days...

Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They know nothing else.

That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.

Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!

They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.

I remember those days...

Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.

What are you, old?

 whembly wrote:
Regarding the internet...

Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.

I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.

They know nothing else.

As someone who's 30 years old, your generalization annoys me. It IS important. However, it's not as important as you suggest it is, at least not to me.

I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, yes. I'm a programmer, by recreation and profession. My other hobbies involve reading (strictly hard copy), brewing beer, baking, and camping. Oh, and wargames too, I guess.

My point is that we're not all these socially awkward manchildren lit exclusively by the glow of our screens. Some of us are not altogether completely shallow human beings.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They know nothing else.

That's why I sort of hate this generation. Do you know how old I was before I saw a pixelated nipple on a computer screen? I was like 26, and it was over a screechy-ass 14.4k modem that took me forever to get installed because I had to spend hours screwing with the DIP switches and the init strings. Before that it was (ironically considering some of the previous comments in this thread) various cultures indigenous populations via National Geographics at the public library.

Meanwhile these little bastards wake up in the morning with essentially a little supercomputer in their pocket that is also a high-speed conduit to as much pornography as they might care to watch, whenever they might want to!

They don't even know what the world used to be like, man.

I remember those days...

Kids truly don't know "how good" they have it now.

What are you, old?

37.

I remember the dial-up age.

Even better... I remember going through the Encyclopedia books to learn things.

Now? We have Google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Regarding the internet...

Let me emphasize something.... especially how important this is for the younger peeps, in their early 30s and below: internet access is a fundamental requirement of civilized life.

I dare you to confront these young folks and inform them that this a luxury. You are imperiling something almost as important as water or power or gas for your car.

They know nothing else.

As someone who's 30 years old, your generalization annoys me. It IS important. However, it's not as important as you suggest it is, at least not to me.

I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, yes. I'm a programmer, by recreation and profession. My other hobbies involve reading (strictly hard copy), brewing beer, baking, and camping. Oh, and wargames too, I guess.

I was referring to the teeny-boppers and 20-somethings.

And, I'm not being mean here... but, honestly, ask yourself if you believe these young'n will the just "accept it" if we told them that it's a luxury?

 Slarg232 wrote:
[What are you, old?

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

 whembly wrote:

I was referring to the teeny-boppers and 20-somethings.

And, I'm not being mean here... but, honestly, ask yourself if you believe these young'n will the just "accept it" if we told them that it's a luxury?

Well, probably not, but to put things on it's head, I could probably find you plenty of 30-50 year olds who would argue the same thing about TV.

 Swastakowey wrote:

As I said in my first comment, America is a very different place. I haven't been to America (and thank goodness for that).

Was that necessary?

I'll actually answer that one too - no.

Seriously everyone - RULE #1.

FIRST, LAST, ONLY warning - from this point on, warnings and suspensions -hurrah!

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I was referring to the teeny-boppers and 20-somethings.

And, I'm not being mean here... but, honestly, ask yourself if you believe these young'n will the just "accept it" if we told them that it's a luxury?

Well, probably not, but to put things on it's head, I could probably find you plenty of 30-50 year olds who would argue the same thing about TV.

I disagree... TV isn't as pervasive as "online" stuff.

You didn't build social interactions by just watching TV... at least, not to FACEBOOK degree.

 Ouze wrote:

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

I remember using Card Catalogs up into high school. Then again, I also remember having a family address book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

I disagree... TV isn't as pervasive as "online" stuff.

You didn't build social interactions by just watching TV... at least, not to FACEBOOK degree.

Well, I was going to respond with:

but if you're going to compare it to facebook, well, I guess I gotta agree with you.

Saying that you have no desire to ever visit country X is an insult these days?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Saying that you have no desire to ever visit country X is an insult these days?

I could have worded it better...

[MOD EDIT - OFF TOPIC/SPAM/BANAL/ETC. - Alpharius]

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I disagree... TV isn't as pervasive as "online" stuff.

You didn't build social interactions by just watching TV... at least, not to FACEBOOK degree.

Well, I was going to respond with:

but if you're going to compare it to facebook, well, I guess I gotta agree with you.

Heh... it's close. But, no cigar.

I have an 8 and 10 year old boys. They go through with withdrawls if I take their tablets away.

Didn't need to whup obedience outta them.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
ir's... cheeselike.

It contains cheese, if that's what you're getting at.

I would not make that statement with any sense of certainty.

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
[What are you, old?

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.

UPDATE: Some posts deleted, some users warned.

 d-usa wrote:

Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.

There have actually been several instances of public discussion within tech discussion boards that I follow of that exact thing and whether it's time to transition the floppy icon to something else.

What I don't understand is why people who are proponents of free market capitalism -- a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure -- always seem to be the same people who are calling those at the bottom 'lazy freeloaders' (or some variation) and arguing that they deserve all they get (which is usually nothing).

Not everyone can be wealthy and successful, the system just doesn't allow it, which is why there should be some provision for people at the bottom.

I would be more interested to know how much work is actually required to keep a person. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, many envisioned a future where machines did all the work, and people would be free to pursue art, culture and learning. But that isn't what we got. Even though machines do do all the work, people just got fired and told to "feth off".

My suspicion is that the amount of work required for a modern person to have all the basics is probably quite small (on a person to person basis), maybe just a couple of hours work per day, for a family. The problem is mortgages and rents are added on top of that, and are usually set in a very arbitrary way based on what can be squeezed out of people.

The cost of living reflects wages and vice versa. This is why gentrification usually displaces poorer people who are unable to meet the expected yield for their area. The cost of living and wages are probably quite finely tuned, based on what people can bare.

I think the easy solution would be more and better trade unions with the power to broker better rates for selling labour, and more stringent regulation of the housing and renting market. I think it's sad when people aren't able to afford a home because they have to compete with big conglomerates speculating on a the housing market.

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
[What are you, old?

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

Goodness... I remember when my city library (where I grew up) got rid of that search engine and started using the DOS computer based one.... I seriously had issues finding things for a good while til I figured out the computer systems. I honestly had to go to the librarians (who had the DOS system for a couple years at least, already) to get help finding stuff.


And, as I pointed out earlier, look at how many employers have an online application? The Federal government is basically a 100% online system. Now, knowing some of the "dredges" of society that we do, how secure do you think your information would be, if you're the average library computer user? Honestly, there's nothing I would EVER look up on a library computer that ever needed any login information, or any of my personal data (so, like wikipedia, or youtube )



I also realize that, even if we're talking within this theoretical vacuum, IRL, there are people who, despite other obligations, put their money where it doesn't belong. For what I'm talking about here: one of the soldiers in my last unit was constantly "broke" (we'd tell him to buy new ACUs, or even a new PT belt, or ANYTHING), we found out, after the process of his divorce, that he was a month away from eviction for non-payment of rent; instead of paying rent, he thought it was a good idea to buy the newest Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed game (seriously, no gak... his money went almost exclusively to smokes and video games). I never met them, but I definitely know of other "infamous" soldiers who made the same choice, but you could swap rent for baby clothes/diapers.

 Smacks wrote:
What I don't understand is why people who are proponents of free market capitalism -- a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure -- always seem to be the same people who are calling those at the bottom 'lazy freeloaders' (or some variation) and arguing that they deserve all they get (which is usually nothing).

It is based on a false belief in a mystical meritocracy that doesn't really exist as well as the self delusion that they will be the one at the top of the hierarchy or soon will be, even if they aren't now. It is building castles out of clouds in the hope that they become real. It is nice when one does well but it is a poor way to make a system of governance.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
[What are you, old?

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.

Or the where "Software Bugs" came from...*

*No... I'm not that old.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
[What are you, old?

Yeah, kind of. This was my search engine:

Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.

Or the where "Software Bugs" came from...*

*No... I'm not that old.

Please guys, don't you remember that this used to be a thing

 Smacks wrote:
a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure

That is not true. Communism, by virtue of being the only system in modern times that allowed millions of its citizens to actually die of starvation in an otherwise functioning nation state, is the system that pushes most people to the bottom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

It is based on a false belief in a mystical meritocracy that doesn't really exist as well as the self delusion that they will be the one at the top of the hierarchy or soon will be, even if they aren't now. It is building castles out of clouds in the hope that they become real. It is nice when one does well but it is a poor way to make a system of governance.

Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.

 daedalus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Kids probably don't even know that the "save" icon used to be an actual physical thing.

There have actually been several instances of public discussion within tech discussion boards that I follow of that exact thing and whether it's time to transition the floppy icon to something else.

I thought the post meant the save icon originally was a button on the machine. I was searching my memory for every having seen one -- been computing since the mid-70s -- and getting no where.

Glad to hear it meant the save icon looks like a floppy disc.

In my view there are far too many icons now. They made sense when menu localisation was a major PITA and there was less screen space for text menus, and a lot fewer icons. Nowadays, it is harder to learn all the new icons than just read words. (Letters after all are just a kind of icon that we have all already learnt thoroughly, so why not use them?)

 Redbeard wrote:
Minimum wage was enacted in the thirties, with the following justification:

"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - FDR


That minimum wage fails to keep pace with inflation and regularly fails to meet its mandate is simply evidence of the weakness of our politicians in failing to support the citizens, rather than the business interests.

The same arguments are raised every time the minimum wage's effective rate falls below the living level. These are the same arguments raised in opposition to the initial establishment of the minimum wage, the same arguments that have been proven false time and again. Those who keep voicing these arguments not only fail to recognize history, but do so largely against their own interest. In a capitalist society, a high minimum wage ensures that customers exist for products.

We have a minimum wage and we still saw domestic manufacturing shrink dramatically over the last several decades. Raising the minimum wage won't bring those jobs back and it actively incentivizes more outsourcing and automation by making both alternatives cheaper. There is nothing the state can do to make it worthwhile for Apple to manufacture iphones in the US. Technology has made the labor market global and there's nothing the state can do to change that either. Car companies already moved their factories from Michigan to Alabama and then to Mexico, they won't move them back of we make labor more expensive. NAFTA got passed what, 20 years ago? Plus all the ensuing trade agreements since then, that we can't just extricate ourselves from overnight even if Congress wanted to do it. If you make McDonald's pay cashiers more money you just make it more cost effective for them to hire less people, not have cashiers and use automated touch screen point of sale systems, just like Sheetz already does. If you make retailers pay too much more for minimum wage employers they'll just cut staff and have more self check out registers just like WalMart, Home Depot, etc. already use. The state can't control market conditions and only has a limited amount of influence on them. The govt has been overtly steering the US economy to a low prices, low wages, consumer economy for decades. Adam Smith saw this coming 200+ years ago. If Congress doubled the federal minimum wage tomorrow it would only exacerbate the very conditions you want it to ameliorate.

PhantomViper wrote:
Actually, capitalist social democracy is the system of governance that has the highest rate of upward social mobility so I don't know where you got that "false belief in a mystical meritocracy" part from.

Upward mobility in the US has been problematic for some time, and the question was why people would vote against their own interests, not "what is the best form of government overall". It is a similar reason to why people in the US constantly bitch about government officials, give them a horrible overall rating, but then keep sending the same people there over and over. I'm not sure how you got from "why do people vote against their own economic interests" to the non-existent "why is capitalist social democracy terrible" and is a bit of its own mystery. Also, in the US you have to go easy on the 'social' part, as that is often conflated with Communism.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
a system that, by its very nature, pushes most people to the bottom of a hierarchical income structure

That is not true. Communism, by virtue of being...

It is true, and this isn't a discussion about the merits of capitalism versus communism.

Here is a graph of wealth distribution in America:


As you can see, 60% of the population are in the bottom 5% in terms of wealth. So clearly most people (60%) have been pushed to the bottom (5%). It is completely true. You are wrong.

sure, capitalism is doing a horrible job of wealth distribution...


but its still doing a better job then every other economic system has...

what "people would like the distribution of wealth" to be has no merit to what it is or should be,

in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions, even if they inherited their wealth, its extremely easy to make bad choices and lose it all.

conversely, people who are not wealthy, generally dont make the same choices as wealthy people do. We see this idea furthered when we notice that 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.

habits define your wealth much more then people like to admit.

 easysauce wrote:
sure, capitalism is doing a horrible job of wealth distribution...


but its still doing a better job then every other economic system has...

what "people would like the distribution of wealth" to be has no merit to what it is or should be,

in general the wealthy are wealthy because they made good decisions, even if they inherited their wealth, its extremely easy to make bad choices and lose it all.

conversely, people who are not wealthy, generally dont make the same choices as wealthy people do. We see this idea furthered when we notice that 70% of lotto winners go broke in a few years.

habits define your wealth much more then people like to admit.

The richest people I know spend most of their time working.

My boss comes in with a huge box of paper work, leaves with a huge box of paper work. Spends 7 days a week at work, only has breaks to sleep. Of course he has done some great stuff like travel to the Atlantic, china etc you name it. But he works harder and more than the normal person. His son barely knew him growing up etc. After dealing with rich people, many are the same. Its not the education someone has, not the job and not always their parents, its a certain drive or ethic that pushes them to success.

There is a huge difference between the extremely wealthy and everyone else. Until people witness how they live their lives the grass seems greener on the other side. I know if being rich means Im a slave to my job I would rather just be getting by. Even though I grew up wanting to be rich I know longer want to. Its something that doesnt end. In order to stay rich, you need to keep getting rich. Even after retirement these guys are still making money where they can.

The richest people probably work harder and more than the average person ever will and they are rewarded as such and this passes down to their children too. They work hard and their children share that benefit. My friends mother spent her life on the benefit drinking etc. Now my friend had a really hard time getting anywhere with no financial help and no contacts from her mom. I on the other hand was lucky my dad worked hard and as he worked met people that got me jobs etc all because of his work. How hard your parents work and so on defines the opportunities you get growing up.

In short, most rich people have worked hard through generations to get rich/stay rich.

But at the end of the day, people should still have enough to get by. Hence why the minimum wage is important.

If the wealthy feed and cloth the rest of us why is a minimum wage needed? Why have so many good jobs been outsourced to China, Mexico and India?