Off topic please.

What if Ukraine splits into West and East? East joins Russia and West remains independent. Will you get $125K?

Because by the look of things either it will be this or it will remain just as it is now. But then hard to define what "independent" is. Ukraine was always under influence of its much more powerful neighbors.

Offtopic:

I don't know where I heard this. I heard that division by zero equals an infinity on a complex plane.

Is above nonsense? I certainly can't find it googling and slashdot audience is the best community for such a question.

I love vim, but only for Python. I do not know how you would survive using vim for C++ since projects written in that language are always large.

Given the absolute bottomless complexity of C++, what do you use as a debugger?

I really used to think that as well. What absolutely disgusted me and turned me bitter is when I read about the piracy rate of Humble Indie Bundle:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle

The bundle came DRM free. You get to decide how much you wanted to pay: Smallest amount you could put in those days was 1 cent (And many did). The proceeds went to charity, developers and further bundles with you able to change how much goes where. Linux, Mac and Windows versions were provided.

There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!

So that just proved to me that pirates are just plain dicks. Piracy for piracy's sake.

As you wish.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 have found that they can get the same thing for free by pirating it. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

Come again?

Both those activities will end up with you losing $160. How would you "Lose nothing" by gaming.

Furthermore, gaining a skill (Which I assume you undergoing some kind of training) is an investment in yourself. That skill could potentially be recognized as an advantage over other job applicants or a basis for a promotion. So overall that is a wise expenditure of $160.

Gaming on the other hand is completely worthless market-wise. You spent $160 on enjoyment and relaxation that you get from a game. Which could be a perfectly valid expenditure from your personal perspective.

Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.

US was very fortunate to escape the ravages of war. Majority of the rest of the world had it much tougher.

Really?!

In 1942 men were busy shooting each other. The women were working their asses off in the factories supplying those men with whatever they needed to keep shooting! And were taking care of home and kids at the same time. All between running to the shelters when the bombers were dropping their ordinance.

I have no idea how they got their 7 hours of sleep...

Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".

Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.

Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).

Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

I disagree.

China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.

China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.

So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good luck with that. What other superpower going to help them?

What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?

What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?

Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.

What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?

EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them over this land change. Come back if Russia annexes Kiev.

US: They don't give a shit about Ukraine! You honestly think US will start anything over a useless backwater like Crimean peninsula? Come back when/if Russia annexes Kiev.

Also Cold War was about ideology. There is no ideology involved in the current conflict.

Perhaps my examples are not the best. Plumbers and cabinet makers are professions that pay well eventually. The point I was trying to make that people do indeed spend their free time doing thing what they do for a job.

This is the part that I just don't understand where both you and the grandparent post got from.This whole thread is about working for pleasure ONCE the income from that activity covers the cost of living. Again the quote from the original post is: "Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head". Quote from the post above that is: "Yes, I work in imaging research, trying to bring about medical imaging progress, with hopefully useful results. I'm not at all motivated by profit. I just want enough money not to starve and enough funding to pay my students and equipment." (Emphasis mine).

No one that I can see has stated in this thread that anyone works for absolute free. We do not dispute that! Your bills needs to be covered first. But beyond covering your needs, profit need not be the motivation!

For example: You have a choice to stay doing a job you love, but only covers your expenses or do what you don't like, but earn triple the amount that you need. In BOTH cases you are NOT working for free! In BOTH cases your living expenses are covered.

What this thread is about is that choosing the former is better for your quality of life than the latter. This is the interesting and complex part that is being discussed. Not simplified "Be a hippy to be happy!" nonsense that you are reading into the discussion.

Have a look at the post you replied to:

Please point to the part where you came up with "lovey dovey feel good philosophy doesn't pay the bills" from? That is an absolutely true statement. Once you have enough money to cover your needs (Needs depend very heavily on your expectations and accepted standard of living), there is no improvement to your quality of life. You do not require to be rich to have financial security to do what you love.

Absolutely!

My father is a cabinet maker. He spends all his working hours working on the factory floor and he is not rich in any sense of a word. However at home he has a shed with a work bench, wood and a hell of a lot of tools. After he comes home he makes stuff just for the pleasure of it. All our friends got custom chairs/tables/drawers/bookshelves that he built out of his own time and money just for fun and a thank you.

My grandfather was a plumber. For his whole life if any of his friends had issues in their home he would fix it up for free. I can assure you, he wasn't rich either.

There is so much more to life than money! Do you think that every single volunteer out there is rich?

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

Where is this stereotype coming from? There is never any hesitation to get rid of developers. In my 10 years of industry experience: Developers are judged on their performance and office politics just like people of any other position less than a manager. If they do well, they are kept, else they are shown the door.

Pride in your work is based entirely on your own expectations you set for yourself. If you are unable to feel pride, YOU need to change not everyone around you.

As for degree of freedom: Developers are being paid a lot for their time. Budgets are always tight (Maybe except if you are some kind of ridiculously large company like Microsoft or Google), so there is no time for fucking around without proven justification. If you can prove that your different way will have measurable benefit to the company's income, justify it to your manager and then feel free.

This is the common issue with developers (Especially those new, fresh out of University): They see themselves as irreplaceable geniuses and want everything in the business to revolve around them.