What BASH and SSH Mean for Windows Systems Administration
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
Like I said above about people believing if they work hard they'll be rich one day, delusions don't help anyone. Typically though, I don't think most people believe it, Americans are not stupid, but they sure repeat it.
But your own example stated that people felt they could have worked harder - and they probably could have.... again - they could have worked in a hotel at night, learning a skill that would allow them to earn more money eventually moving to a day position, they could learn how to weld and work in construction making several times what the burger flipper makes. They didn't have to stay a burger flipper for their whole life.
Of course all that said - Are there enough high paying jobs for everyone? I honestly don't know.
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well.I'm not talking about becoming middle class, I'm talking about becoming wealthy, those are two different things. Most people could obviously directly benefit from better education, night school, etc. I never argued against that.
That's not what is said though, it's "be rich" nobody says "If I work hard enough, and get an education, I'll be able to do alright and maybe retire on time," much less tells everyone else that's how to do it or what the fruits of working hard are.
You can do this while making 45-50k a year (depending on the cost of living in your area). We need people educating themselves on the stock market, mutual funds, Roth IRA's, Index funds, etc. If you take $50 out of your bi-weekly paycheck and put it into an account that's $1200 a year. You can put that into a Roth IRA and buy into a Vanguard Starfund with that--which is totally respectable. Being in a Roth IRA container (which can only be wages) is post tax money. That means any gains or dividends you get are untaxed. It has a complete snowball effect if you keep reinvesting everything. Anyone can and should do this.
You don't have to be a genius to get ahead.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
Like I said above about people believing if they work hard they'll be rich one day, delusions don't help anyone. Typically though, I don't think most people believe it, Americans are not stupid, but they sure repeat it.
But your own example stated that people felt they could have worked harder - and they probably could have.... again - they could have worked in a hotel at night, learning a skill that would allow them to earn more money eventually moving to a day position, they could learn how to weld and work in construction making several times what the burger flipper makes. They didn't have to stay a burger flipper for their whole life.
Of course all that said - Are there enough high paying jobs for everyone? I honestly don't know.
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well.But those jobs have value and they are important. I'm not saying you are this way but the idea that "blue-collar" work is unimportant and thus not worth very much is kind of silly. Are they worth the same as a sys admin? No, depends, but they should still be able to live relatively comfortable.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Someone recently posted on Facebook how much money it would cost me every week to fund Bernie's universal healthcare, universal education, higher wages, and such.
And my thought was.... damn, who total ass would not be willing to spend that little money to make life so much better for so many people.
And yet... most people feel that way.
And the post didn't mention how much less taxes were needed for the whole plan, it was a fake, inflated number to make it look bad and, in reality, it showed just how smart the plan is that even the fake inflated numbers can't make it look bad.
I don't suppose you recall the number? And why would taxes be lower than they are today?
Because it costs less. If the cost goes down, why would taxes go up? The current system is designed to keep taxes high, not low, and to hide the real tax rate.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
I think that's true, but for so long Americans have seen everyone else as moochers, they usually don't see them as people equal to themselves in struggle, desire, pain, etc.
Exactly. Americans hate the idea of anyone getting something unfairly for the good.
Europe: It's worth a few moochers making out well as long as no one innocently suffers.
America: It's worth a lot of innocents suffering to make sure no moochers takes advantage of me.Wow... that's almost exactly how quite a few people have explained it to me.
Observing both cultures broadly, I think that it is very apparent. One values absolute value... what produces the best for everyone. The other values relative value... what produces the most for those that deserve it.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
Because it is culture. People want to be "better" or "winning".
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
Because it is culture. People want to be "better" or "winning".
Hence the aforementioned reality-stars obsession with losers.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Now I don't know anyone who doesn't believe they are due at least minimum wage.
Actually, minimum wage is a myth. Thanks to unions you can be forced to go below it!
Eh? how so? Looking to educate myself here.
A union can negotiate the workers down to minimum wage on paper. Then can, through special union laws, force the workers to pay to work. And the union can take that fee out of their paycheck, literally lowering their pay rate. The union can be owned or controlled by the business in order to ensure that there is no voting or ability to stop the union.
Welcome to what the poor vote for in America. Unions are a very simple means of tricking the poor into lowering their value and making them thankful that it happened to them. It's like the lotto, it's a tax on the poor.
I've never been a fan of unions - and this just adds one more reason to the pile.
Yes, more mouths to feed from the same (or less) work being done. How could that possibly go wrong? Unions are just, yet another, form of welfare. but one paid for exclusively by the poor, never the rich.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
I am amazed at how little those social services would cost. Even if they are on the low-end of estimation it would be a massive benefit for the small increase in taxes.
What Europe has taught us is that they don't cost anything, they save money. A LOT of money. That it would cost anything at all is actually fake. It would generate more money. A healthy, educated, safe populace is more productive.
Except that you now have to find work for all those unemployed insurance company workers
That's what welfare is for. I'd much prefer them on welfare than being in organized crime like they are now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
I am amazed at how little those social services would cost. Even if they are on the low-end of estimation it would be a massive benefit for the small increase in taxes.
What Europe has taught us is that they don't cost anything, they save money. A LOT of money. That it would cost anything at all is actually fake. It would generate more money. A healthy, educated, safe populace is more productive.
Except that you now have to find work for all those unemployed insurance company workers
That's what welfare is for. I'd much prefer them on welfare than being in organized crime like they are now.
lol! I was thinking of saying before "They can get back in their coffins before the next sunrise for all I care."
-
@tonyshowoff said:
I don't think I've seen a topic more derailed. Is topic splitting even possible on nodeBB yet?
Yes, it is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
No, the term universal means "the poor get it too" and is generally considered abhorrent.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
Exactly. There is a certain desire to get ahead. that's how a lot of voting in the US works. Apply this thought to healthcare, taxes, minimum wage, etc.
That's why NO ONE complains about the minimum wage being too high, they complain that the minimum wage is "too close to their wage."
My Facebook is full of people complaining not that others make too much, but that they make too close to them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's why NO ONE complains about the minimum wage being too high, they complain that the minimum wage is "too close to their wage."
Definitely seen that a lot, it's weird.
-
@Dashrender said:
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
I don't agree. Car insurance takes more out than it gives back. It's better than healthcare, but not a good system in the interest of the people.
-
@Dashrender said:
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well.
Actually, they pay decently.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's why NO ONE complains about the minimum wage being too high, they complain that the minimum wage is "too close to their wage."
Definitely seen that a lot, it's weird.
Yeah, it's not people wanting more, just wanting others to have less.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
And that is why I'm saying GET RID OF IT - and move to national healthcare - I'm starting to wonder if I'm typing Greek?
Ah, yes sorry about that I misunderstood your reasoning.
Sorry coliver - I'm a bit punch drunk, unlike Scott I don't work well on 1.5 hours sleep... long night last night.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
And that is why I'm saying GET RID OF IT - and move to national healthcare - I'm starting to wonder if I'm typing Greek?
Ah, yes sorry about that I misunderstood your reasoning.
Sorry coliver - I'm a bit punch drunk, unlike Scott I don't work well on 1.5 hours sleep... long night last night.
He was up working still when I got up this morning!
-
@coliver said:
But those jobs have value and they are important. I'm not saying you are this way but the idea that "blue-collar" work is unimportant and thus not worth very much is kind of silly. Are they worth the same as a sys admin? No, depends, but they should still be able to live relatively comfortable.
i agree with that today, only because we can't easily automate it and not need people to do it. Those blue collar jobs though - often they can't raise their rates to much because the people buying those services mainly are other blue collar workers, who have low income like themselves. Sure you can raise the minimum, but does that really effect any change? Now you're just paying more for the service you got before. You're getting ahead.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
Because it is culture. People want to be "better" or "winning".
Charlie Sheen anyone?
