I bill at $800 a day in the Ruby space. It's not that often though, because I'd rather work on my own stuff than other people's! From my experience, this is not on the high side, though perhaps slightly above average.
Peter Cooper (like, RubyInside Peter Cooper?) only costs $100 an hour? Noted.
I don't do much consultancy (less than a couple days per month), so yeah. I turn down a lot of work for various reasons and am happy with more modest ephemeral gigs that fit into my life rather than doing stuff that makes me unhappy.
Peter Cooper (like, RubyInside Peter Cooper?) only costs $100 an hour? Noted.
Unless, of course, he only works for 30 minutes a day.
Haha, not quite, but I've done four hours at that rate before.. though the 6 hour traffic jam I got caught in on the same day didn't quite equalize it out ;-)
I bill $125/hr for Ruby on Rails development work. If you are the Rails core type that writes books and presents at confs you can charge $200/hr. If you are new and just starting out you may get $50/hr.
In the software world it seems people are scared to talk $. Be upfront about what you charge so you don't waste time talking to those unwilling to pay what you are worth.
>He said he had a friend who owned a pawn shop with a computer Unethical to aid a pawn shop, especially if you are a Christian. But hey, who am I to judge. Edit: pawn shops are unethical from a Christian viewpoint, as they charge interest. And the parent said he was doing Bible study. But again, who am I to give advice on such topics as an heathen. Just downmod and show me I'm wrong.
So Christians don't use credit cards?
Yes, they do, but the subtle thing is that they should not.
Really - what is going on here? -29 for some batty comment about Christians and pawn shops? I would have voted it down to -1 too, but come on folks. We've always reserved big downvotes only for offensive, insulting trolls, not things that were in some way "wrong". A -1 or 0 is sufficient to indicate that.
That's the point, he's trying to be an insulting troll, or at least bait the OP. His comment is almost incoherent so it can be misread as some weird guy who hasn't kept up to date on xtian usury prohibitions.
It was trollish and I was trying to bait the OP, in the sense that it was completely off-topic and that I was suggesting the OP was an hypocrite. Which I still believe to be true. Duh. Christianity and usury? I thought it was obvious for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#New_Testament
I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of today's world. I hoped to get an intelligent answer other than the usual 'everybody does it' or 'I could not get by otherwise' fallacies.
Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic. Curiosity is for the weak.
For a Christian, they are, as they charge interest. And the parent said he was doing Bible study.
Very few Christians take that stance on interest today. Most haven't for at least 400 years.
Interestingly, the issue was resolved in the 1490s for the Catholic Church with the discovery of the New World. The expeditions required financing and the financing entailed interest. The explorers were painting pictures of golden cities, boundless riches and fountains of youth, somehow the church managed to magically resolve the interest issue.
Really - what is going on here? -29 for some batty comment about Christians and pawn shops? I would have voted it down to -1 too, but come on folks. We've always reserved big downvotes only for offensive, insulting trolls, not things that were in some way "wrong". A -1 or 0 is sufficient to indicate that.
This is not just wrong, but stupid. You don't have to be well versed in Christianity to know that most Christian sects have long since rethought their positions on usury. Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar. But you are right, the comment is rather batty and I don't think the fellow meant anything by it.
>Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar.
I beg to digress, if you care to discuss it. It is not similar. Geocentrism is a theory of the world and was abandoned in the view of newly discovered undisputable facts. The prohibition on usury is a moral judgement, an axiom of a moral system, not a theory or view of the world, and as such cannot be changed by facts. I thought that difference was obvious. It is furthermore closely related to generosity and the sin of greed. Modern sects have abandoned this prohibition simply for convenience, thus completely changing their moral framework, and they have nothing to do with the original Christians.
Very few Christians take that stance on interest today. Most haven't for at least 400 years.
Interestingly, the issue was resolved in the 1490s for the Catholic Church with the discovery of the New World. The expeditions required financing and the financing entailed interest. The explorers were painting pictures of golden cities, boundless riches and fountains of youth, somehow the church managed to magically resolve the interest issue.
That was the point I was trying to raise. The Catholic Church was very liberal, when financial interests were at bay. All Western churches inherited its corrupted moral base.
Edit: and the downmods restart. I would like to see some arguments against my remark. Something with more substance, besides obvious re-statements and appeals to number such as 'but everybody does it'. I thought HN visitors would be familiar with proper refutation and rhetoric, and that pg's How to Disagree was by now widely known. BTW, it's here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
That's the point, he's trying to be an insulting troll, or at least bait the OP. His comment is almost incoherent so it can be misread as some weird guy who hasn't kept up to date on xtian usury prohibitions.
It was trollish and I was trying to bait the OP, in the sense that it was completely off-topic and that I was suggesting the OP was an hypocrite. Which I still believe to be true. Duh. Christianity and usury? I thought it was obvious for everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#New_Testament I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of tod…
That's the point, he's trying to be an insulting troll, or at least bait the OP. His comment is almost incoherent so it can be misread as some weird guy who hasn't kept up to date on xtian usury prohibitions.
It was trollish and I was trying to bait the OP, in the sense that it was completely off-topic and that I was suggesting the OP was an hypocrite. Which I still believe to be true. Duh. Christianity and usury? I thought it was obvious for everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#New_Testament I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of tod…
There are prohibitions against usury in the literature of most of the major religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Obviously, the contemporary versions of these religions have loosened their positions. Protestants, for example, haven't been seriously opposed to usury for centuries. Islam, however, is still opposed to it. The Muslim world has its own banking system. Would you have made the same comment if the OP hinted that he was Muslim?