I've found a bit of a bimodal distribution in my own experience. If you are a techie in a hot field, you literally can walk out of one job into another. However, if you are laid off and have to start looking, or especially if you try something else for a period of time, the one month per 10K formula can be fairly accurate. It really can seem to make no sense when that happens to you, especially if you are 40something with financial obligations.
We can all find anecdotes that violate any rule of thumb. In the misty past, I remember getting fired from a $19,000 job and having a new one lined up before I reached my car in the parking lot, then quitting that $26,000 job a year later and taking 4 months to find my next one, which was for considerably more money.
On the 1% chance that you aren't trolling, I'll respond.
I got my figure from one of the trade rags. It's been so long I don't remember which one, but it could have been Network World, or Computerworld, or possibly Information Week. One of the crappy non-technical ones.
Take the promotion, but negotiate a nice raise "for the extra responsibility and unpaid time I'll have to put in."
Update my resume, now showing that I have management experience.
Start looking for CIO jobs with startups, sticking it out in the management job until I found them.
In the meantime, I'd simply budget my time so that I kept my hand in technically. There's no reason you can't, and now you get to decide who does what when.
Also, you undoubtedly have had bad managers in the past at some point in your life (if you're like me, more often than not), so now's your chance to find out if your own ideas for management work. If they do, you might convince other managers to work that way, and affect some positive change in your organization. Or somebody else's.
I work for FedEx Services, and we have some managers here who are ass-deep in the technical side, and others who think RAM is a product of the Daimler Chrysler corporation.
I personally know one guy who was a manager for about a year, didn't like it, and got himself a peaceable demotion to a technical advisor position in which he is gleefully happy. Only now, he's got management experience on his resume, which is a big help in getting technical lead positions at many companies.
In other words, if your company is trying to give you lemons, make lemonade.
I have to go look for a new job, which I will likely find within 30 days.
Unless you've already found that new job, don't be so sure of that.
The statistics last time I checked (which was admittedly a couple of years ago) were that on average, the length of time it took to find a new job in this field was close to your old salary divided by 10,000 in months.
In other words, if you're making $50,000 a year now, the average is 5 months to find a new job.
This probably only holds true in the $20,000 to $90,000 range, but I don't know exactly what the range was. I do know that the assumption was that you were looking for another job in the same range of pay.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again; the only way to put a stop to all these stupid uptime dick-size contests is to put in a writable/proc/uptime.
If anybody can make their damn uptime say whatever they want, it'll stop.
Sometimes communication with the maintainers of these other packages is difficult, for various reasons. Sometimes they are immediately turned off because we don't use the word Linux.
snip
Why are you guys so fork paranoid?
Looks to me like you've already answered your own question, Theo.
The 1.5 MHz Pentium IV was an unusually large leap.
I think it's too early to be speaking about the Pentium IV in past tense yet. To my mind, the thing hasn't happened yet, Intel has just thrown some alphas out and called them releases.
That means they spent another $40 million promoting it, just for the theatrical release.
In other words, the studio will have called it "break-even" when it made $60 million.
So it's made $70 million, which barely covers the cost of making a sequel.
The TV series is where they could have made some real money. It flopped, too, which sucks because it was filmed near here. I was hoping to run into Dana Hee.:-)
Traffic doubles as the cost of off-the-shelf technology gets less. For you to be able to apply this you have to assume that the rate of technology advance in the network will outstrip that of data storage.
And you, in turn, are assuming the capacity of the existing equipment will double. You'll have to replace it to accomplish that, and since you'll need to retrieve data you'll still need the old hardware lying around, so basically you'll be spending the hardware costs over and over.
At least double or triple my numbers to account for this.
I think this is unlikely as moving traffic around inherently requires somewhere to store it at the rate that it is being transmitted.
Yes, but it's stored on hundreds of millions of individual systems, with individual disk drives. You could model that instead of using tape, but then you'd thousands of times as much money.
Instead of $80US for your 35GB DLT tape, you'd be buying 35GB disk drives.
Instead of buying a $250,000 tape array to store 11.8TB, you'd be buying 337 35Gb hard drives and enough computers to run them. That's about $176 bucks a pop for the drives, assuming EIDE. Then you need (in order to keep up with the data transfer rates) no more than two per computer, so that's another $300 computer (I pulled that number out of my ass, unlike all the other numbers I'm using, so forgive me if it's off by a bit) for every two drives, so now you're spending $59,000 for the drives, and $51,000 for the PCs.
So you've saved money, but now you're replacing PCs and hard drives CONSTANTLY, and losing data when you do.
So you've got to add more PCs, and more drives for redunancy, and pretty soon you've tripled or more this cost. Boom, it just got cheaper to use tape, which is why Sun can still sell those things, even at $250,000 a pop.
That's just Usenet, doofus, and Usenet is a drop in the bucket. A tiny drop in a huge bucket.
Look at my next post, on the real numbers.
And, for the record; I don't use a 10Mb hard disk, or a 10MB hard disk. At work, I use multiple 9 Terabyte raw capacity EMC arrays, larger Hitachi arrays, and enough 3590 tape to back a lot of it up for 7 years.
JANET's US-to-UK transatlantic links transferred a total of 1803765.15 Megabytes yesterday.
That's 1.72 Terabytes a day, or 4.395 Exabytes in 7 years, and that's assuming traffic doesn't keep doubling every year, which it is expected to at LEAST do.
Someone was linking Sun's 11.8 Terabyte tape array. You'd need 373 of them to store all this online where you could retrieve it. Government pricing on those is about $250,000 a pop, you could probably get a quantity discount for ordering several hundred of them. Let's say you don't, so it's $250,000 apiece. That's $93.25 million US$.
Then you gotta buy the tapes; they hold 35GB apiece, so you need 128,589 of them. They're about $80 apiece, so that's another $10 million US, assuming none of them wear out and have to be replaced, and again assuming traffic stops doubling every year.
Even if you could store that, how many months would it take to run a query against it?
And that's just US-to-UK and UK-to-US traffic. UK to anywhere else isn't accounted for.
It would probably be expensive, but it would give them a slight edge over the competition, or even just let them catch up with the competition...
Yahoo makes more money than all the webmail services that allow SSL combined. If they "caught up", they'd be making far less profit. Their shareholders would probably sue them.
They have 125 million registered users. How many do you honestly think they'd gain by offering SSL? How many do places like MailandNews.com have combined? A few thousand? A million?
Sure, but why bother with the half-assed attempt? This sounds very much like a salesdroid idea.
You've answered your own question. It's a sales ploy, and it's relying on the fact that by definition, half the population is of below-average intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found a bit of a bimodal distribution in my own experience. If you are a techie in a hot field, you literally can walk out of one job into another. However, if you are laid off and have to start looking, or especially if you try something else for a period of time, the one month per 10K formula can be fairly accurate. It really can seem to make no sense when that happens to you, especially if you are 40something with financial obligations.
We can all find anecdotes that violate any rule of thumb. In the misty past, I remember getting fired from a $19,000 job and having a new one lined up before I reached my car in the parking lot, then quitting that $26,000 job a year later and taking 4 months to find my next one, which was for considerably more money.
-
you totally just made that up
On the 1% chance that you aren't trolling, I'll respond.
I got my figure from one of the trade rags. It's been so long I don't remember which one, but it could have been Network World, or Computerworld, or possibly Information Week. One of the crappy non-technical ones.
-
Personally, I would do this:
Take the promotion, but negotiate a nice raise "for the extra responsibility and unpaid time I'll have to put in."
Update my resume, now showing that I have management experience.
Start looking for CIO jobs with startups, sticking it out in the management job until I found them.
In the meantime, I'd simply budget my time so that I kept my hand in technically. There's no reason you can't, and now you get to decide who does what when.
Also, you undoubtedly have had bad managers in the past at some point in your life (if you're like me, more often than not), so now's your chance to find out if your own ideas for management work. If they do, you might convince other managers to work that way, and affect some positive change in your organization. Or somebody else's.
I work for FedEx Services, and we have some managers here who are ass-deep in the technical side, and others who think RAM is a product of the Daimler Chrysler corporation.
I personally know one guy who was a manager for about a year, didn't like it, and got himself a peaceable demotion to a technical advisor position in which he is gleefully happy. Only now, he's got management experience on his resume, which is a big help in getting technical lead positions at many companies.
In other words, if your company is trying to give you lemons, make lemonade.
-
I have to go look for a new job, which I will likely find within 30 days.
Unless you've already found that new job, don't be so sure of that.
The statistics last time I checked (which was admittedly a couple of years ago) were that on average, the length of time it took to find a new job in this field was close to your old salary divided by 10,000 in months.
In other words, if you're making $50,000 a year now, the average is 5 months to find a new job.
This probably only holds true in the $20,000 to $90,000 range, but I don't know exactly what the range was. I do know that the assumption was that you were looking for another job in the same range of pay.
-
All those stickers on the back of the trucks that have Calvin urinating on company "X's" logo are not actually Calvin.
My favorites are the two racer Danny Sullivan has on the window of his pickup; Calvin is pissing on the numbers 3 and 24.
-
Baloney.. This will allow people trying to register names for a valid use to actually get the names they want.
Right; and domain squatters are people, and they're trying to register the names that they want, for a use that NetSol considers valid.
I didn't say this was or wasn't a good thing, I merely commented that it wouldn't fix the problem that particular poster suggested it would.
-
This lawsuit won't fix that.
Instead of NSI sitting on your old domain name, they'll be forced to sell it to the domain squatters who will jump on it the instant it expires.
-
I have said it before, and I'll say it again; the only way to put a stop to all these stupid uptime dick-size contests is to put in a writable /proc/uptime.
If anybody can make their damn uptime say whatever they want, it'll stop.
-
Don't respond to trolls, it just makes them troll more.
-
Sorry, no sugar in them; it's Nutrashit.
-
Sometimes communication with the maintainers of these other packages is difficult, for various reasons. Sometimes they are immediately turned off because we don't use the word Linux.
snip
Why are you guys so fork paranoid?
Looks to me like you've already answered your own question, Theo.
-
The 1.5 MHz Pentium IV was an unusually large leap.
I think it's too early to be speaking about the Pentium IV in past tense yet. To my mind, the thing hasn't happened yet, Intel has just thrown some alphas out and called them releases.
-
$20 million budget.
:-)
That means they spent another $40 million promoting it, just for the theatrical release.
In other words, the studio will have called it "break-even" when it made $60 million.
So it's made $70 million, which barely covers the cost of making a sequel.
The TV series is where they could have made some real money. It flopped, too, which sucks because it was filmed near here. I was hoping to run into Dana Hee.
-
Uhm, that's a shell replacement, too.
-
That's nice, but what's the point?
Two words: Counter. Strike.
-
Uhm, you realize that by that logic, hardly any mass murderer ever qualifies as a villain?
Hitler, Stalin, even small-timers like Kaczynski; they were all doing what they did because of reasons that they thought were good.
-
Traffic doubles as the cost of off-the-shelf technology gets less. For you to be able to apply this you have to assume that the rate of technology advance in the network will outstrip that of data storage.
And you, in turn, are assuming the capacity of the existing equipment will double. You'll have to replace it to accomplish that, and since you'll need to retrieve data you'll still need the old hardware lying around, so basically you'll be spending the hardware costs over and over.
At least double or triple my numbers to account for this.
I think this is unlikely as moving traffic around inherently requires somewhere to store it at the rate that it is being transmitted.
Yes, but it's stored on hundreds of millions of individual systems, with individual disk drives. You could model that instead of using tape, but then you'd thousands of times as much money.
Instead of $80US for your 35GB DLT tape, you'd be buying 35GB disk drives.
Instead of buying a $250,000 tape array to store 11.8TB, you'd be buying 337 35Gb hard drives and enough computers to run them. That's about $176 bucks a pop for the drives, assuming EIDE. Then you need (in order to keep up with the data transfer rates) no more than two per computer, so that's another $300 computer (I pulled that number out of my ass, unlike all the other numbers I'm using, so forgive me if it's off by a bit) for every two drives, so now you're spending $59,000 for the drives, and $51,000 for the PCs.
So you've saved money, but now you're replacing PCs and hard drives CONSTANTLY, and losing data when you do.
So you've got to add more PCs, and more drives for redunancy, and pretty soon you've tripled or more this cost. Boom, it just got cheaper to use tape, which is why Sun can still sell those things, even at $250,000 a pop.
-
I did, it's right there in my message, or you can follow the link from my original post; JANET's linked to there.
-
That's just Usenet, doofus, and Usenet is a drop in the bucket. A tiny drop in a huge bucket.
Look at my next post, on the real numbers.
And, for the record; I don't use a 10Mb hard disk, or a 10MB hard disk. At work, I use multiple 9 Terabyte raw capacity EMC arrays, larger Hitachi arrays, and enough 3590 tape to back a lot of it up for 7 years.
-
A little more data:
JANET's US-to-UK transatlantic links transferred a total of 1803765.15 Megabytes yesterday.
That's 1.72 Terabytes a day, or 4.395 Exabytes in 7 years, and that's assuming traffic doesn't keep doubling every year, which it is expected to at LEAST do.
Someone was linking Sun's 11.8 Terabyte tape array. You'd need 373 of them to store all this online where you could retrieve it. Government pricing on those is about $250,000 a pop, you could probably get a quantity discount for ordering several hundred of them. Let's say you don't, so it's $250,000 apiece. That's $93.25 million US$.
Then you gotta buy the tapes; they hold 35GB apiece, so you need 128,589 of them. They're about $80 apiece, so that's another $10 million US, assuming none of them wear out and have to be replaced, and again assuming traffic stops doubling every year.
Even if you could store that, how many months would it take to run a query against it?
And that's just US-to-UK and UK-to-US traffic. UK to anywhere else isn't accounted for.
-
Usenet traffic alone is over 100Gb a DAY.
They want to preserve that for 7 years.
That's 255.5 Terabytes, just for Usenet.
Usenet is a drop in the bucket compared to web traffic.
Columbia University estimates that Average data traffic for the year 2000 is 4.451 Terabits per SECOND.
By 2002, it's estimated to be 27.645 Terabits per second. That's worldwide, of course, not British.
I doubt there's enough disk and tape capacity worldwide to store a month of it, much less 7 years.
We're talking 298.566 Exabytes per day in 2002.
Perhaps these idiots should look at the statistics before they pass a law that they can't possibly fund.
-
Gee, the President of the North American Academy of the Spanish Language doesn't want people slowly migrating toward English.
This is about like the President of GM bitching about Honda outselling his products.
BTW, this guy's wife makes her living teaching English to Spanish-speakers in New York so they can get jobs. She's accepted it, why can't he?
-
It would probably be expensive, but it would give them a slight edge over the competition, or even just let them catch up with the competition ...
Yahoo makes more money than all the webmail services that allow SSL combined. If they "caught up", they'd be making far less profit. Their shareholders would probably sue them.
They have 125 million registered users. How many do you honestly think they'd gain by offering SSL? How many do places like MailandNews.com have combined? A few thousand? A million?
-
Sure, but why bother with the half-assed attempt? This sounds very much like a salesdroid idea.
You've answered your own question. It's a sales ploy, and it's relying on the fact that by definition, half the population is of below-average intelligence.
-
Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message? It seems silly not to...
To do so on their scale would be horribly expensive.
Handling a non-SSL web transaction doesn't require a fraction of the CPU power that an SSL transaction requires.
Even with dedicated-SSL hardware, they'd have to increase their number of servers.
-