In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
But the PiPiCo isn't even able to run her own C compiler!
It is far less useful than the PDP was back then.
But the PiPiCo isn't even able to run her own C compiler!
It is far less useful than the PDP was back then.
On 26-05-2023 15:19, gareth evans wrote:
In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
This doesn't affect your salary to processing power comparison but the starting salary has "only" doubled: £1320 in 1972 is £14,585.20 now, according to https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
Yes, the one aspect of the Labour Party in government that affects all
of us is that a pound is now only worth a shilling.
In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
On 2023-05-28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:19:21 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
Now if only we could achieve a thousandth of that reduction in the
costs of food and energy production.
And, better still, pass some of that reduction along to consumers
rather than giving it all to shareholders of the distribution companies.
On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:19:21 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
In 1972 as a raw graduate my starting salary was £1320 pa
and a bare bones PDP11/20 (with no I/O periphals)
was over £5K, ISTR nearer £10K
but now
starting salaries are £30K+ pa and the equivalent,
or better, processing power in a RPi Pico is £5.
Now if only we could achieve a thousandth of that reduction in the costs of food and energy production.
On 26-05-2023 23:28, gareth evans wrote:
Yes, the one aspect of the Labour Party in government that affects all
of us is that a pound is now only worth a shilling.
Tory scum moron,
On 27/05/2023 10:09, A. Dumas wrote:
On 26-05-2023 23:28, gareth evans wrote:
Yes, the one aspect of the Labour Party in government that affects all
of us is that a pound is now only worth a shilling.
Tory scum moron,
None of that here, thank you.
---druck
The chief function of Marxism, and by definition the Labour party, is to teach people how to feel justified in indulging in their most negative emotions 'because They Really Are Doing It to You'.
The best way to improve the lot of the untermensch, untouchables,
working class and hoi polloi is for developmental entrepreneurs to
be the leaders and to
feather their own nests by improving the lot of the human race in
general.
Kings queens, lords, ladies and their ilk are not such leaders but
are destructive parasites.
The socialists get it wrong by dragging everybody down.
the lot of the untermensch
On 31/05/2023 10:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The chief function of Marxism, and by definition the Labour party, is to
teach people how to feel justified in indulging in their most negative
emotions 'because They Really Are Doing It to You'.
The best way to improve the lot of the untermensch, untouchables,
working class and hoi polloi is for developmental entrepreneurs to
be the leaders and to
feather their own nests by improving the lot of the human race in
general.
Kings queens, lords, ladies and their ilk are not such leaders but
are destructive parasites.
The socialists get it wrong by dragging everybody down.
On 31/05/2023 10:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The chief function of Marxism, and by definition the Labour party, is to
teach people how to feel justified in indulging in their most negative
emotions 'because They Really Are Doing It to You'.
The best way to improve the lot of the untermensch, untouchables,
working class and hoi polloi is for developmental entrepreneurs to
be the leaders and to
feather their own nests by improving the lot of the human race in
general.
Kings queens, lords, ladies and their ilk are not such leaders but
are destructive parasites.
The socialists get it wrong by dragging everybody down.
On Wed, 31 May 2023 11:14:32 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
The best way to improve the lot of the untermensch, untouchables,
working class and hoi polloi is for developmental entrepreneurs to
be the leaders and to
feather their own nests by improving the lot of the human race in
general.
Kings queens, lords, ladies and their ilk are not such leaders but
are destructive parasites.
I have listened to more than one member of the British aristocracy
make almost word for word that argument with nobility where you have "developmental entrepreneurs". It is the standard justification for the existence of a privileged group, no matter who is in that group.
I don't believe there has ever been a society without a privileged group so they're probably something we have to accept.
A quick look at history will reveal that the privileged group has always been split between parasites and benefactors the former being the price we pay for the existence of the latter. A useful contribution would
be a way to influence the ratio and encourage benefactors. I don't know of one but using heredity as the entry mechanism certainly wasn't one.
The currently popular one is of course the ability to amass money,
it seems like it ought to be better but there are so many unproductive ways to amass money.
The socialists get it wrong by dragging everybody down.
The important thing IMHO is to restrain the excesses at both ends,
we can as easily afford cushions at the bottom as we can feathers at the
top.
Anyone can be unlucky enough to wind up at the bottom no matter
how able. Some can never find a way up some give up trying, we can afford to be gentle to them and we should because there's one thing the Christians got right "There but for the grace of god go I". Replace "the grace of god"
with "a bit of luck" if you prefer it's still true.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 140:19:26 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 5,389 |
| Messages: | 223,236 |
