...Or a Bussard Reactor, which uses interstellar Hydrogen as fuel. Basically, you don't carry the fuel with you, but gather it as you go. An even more interesting feature is that the faster you go, the more fuel you get... Of course, this all is highly theoretical at the moment, but finding super-Earths so close (astronomically speaking) should only encourage research efforts in that direction.
Does the calculator account for speed of light limitation? (you can't go faster that 296K km/s) I think it does, my manual calculations got me pretty close to that.
Ideally, for a human crew, the ship should alternate acceleration and deceleration so that the perceived gravity is always at 1G. Otherwise, you would accelerate for 1 year, then spend 4 years in zero gravity, then decelerate for 1 year at 1G, which is highly NOT recommended.
100 years of travel for 22 light years away. That's 50 years of acceleration and 50 years of deceleration to travel 22 light years. So you have to accelerate for 50 years and travel 11 light years in the process.
What's the calculated acceleration?
22 light years is 208,200,000,000,000 km.
Average speed to get there in 100 years is 208,200,000,000,000 km divided by 3,153,600,000 seconds, that's 66019.8 km/s. You need to reach that speed in 25 years of acceleration. That's 0.08 m/square second. Easily achievable, provided you don't have to carry half of Earth's mass in fuel. I think even ionic drives can get that sort of acceleration.
Ideally, considering an acceleration of 1g (constant, disregards time spend in orbit or maneuvering around, etc) you could reach 283,940 km/s in exactly 11 months (335 days).
Now all we have to do is come up with a perfectly working Bussard reactor... (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML)
Companies make bad decisions all the time. The real question is: would they back off and reinstate the previous state of things? In this case, whether it was intentional or a mistake is less relevant; public backlash prompted them to reconsider (or realize the mistake) and the outcome is eventually positive. Did they lie about what happened? i don't know and frankly I don't care. All I care for is what the outcome is.
Yeah well I call that bullshit, no offense. 2250 hours worked per year translate to 56,25 weeks assuming 40 hours/week, that's more than a year's worth of work. It means they worked more than 40 hours per week, every week, no vacation, nothing, and that on average? Please...
What I meant, anyway, wasn't that they work a small amount of hours per week, but that they don't accomplish as much as they should, that's the issue here. Also, it depends on what do you compare against.
On average, someone from India would boost their output if you ask them too, in a measurable way. Someone from Mexico, on the other hand, will appear to do so, whenever possible. Of course, it depends on the output type. If they're producing nails, then a simple count would reveal the truth. If they're working support tickets, on the other way... I have quite a few stories in my sleeve on that, but a short general example is as follows:
Eac member of support had a (badly designed) workload target of 25 tickets per day. Each analyst from India was reporting an average of 20-22 tickets a day, and each member from Chile and Mexico was reporting an average of 7-29 tickets a day. You would say they're working harder than their Indian counterparts, and the general idea was like this for years, until I came along as LoB "report builder" (so-to-speak).
Now I built and run the following monthly reports ([country is either IN or MX]):
1. - Sum of non-unique tickets worked by all analysts from [country] 2. - Sum of unique tickets worked by analysts from [country] 3. - Average daily tickets worked by analysts from [country]
For Mexico, value of report 1. was almost 4 times higher than value of report 2. (actual number 3.89) For India, it was a bit over 2 (2.17)
I was puzzled until I checked what was happening. Turned out analysts from Mexico were passing the same ticket around, so that each got a +1 in their personal tickets worked count. neat, isn't it. Analyst 1 would send an e-mail to the customer, analyst 2 would change the ticket status, analyst 3 would put a nice note, and so on. That's because they KNEW what are they measured against and were happily circumventing the system.
If you're only considering administration, yes. However, the costs skyrocket if you encounter an issue where some deep inner workings of the OS need to be debugged. Admins won't help you there. You might want to get support straight from the source. Furthermore, there are critical environments where your incurred losses due to outages and lack of official support greatly offset the savings. Think "12 hours of outage cost the company more than 5 years of support license".
I don't even want to start thinking of really critical environments where an outage might cost lives.
Oracle Database is free to download and install. Oh you want support for it? Tough luck. On the other hand, Microsoft licenses include support to start with, albeit basic. You indeed need to pay extra for the whole 9 yards.
Saying "Linux is free" is too vague to make a point. You need to say "Linux is free to download and install and use" - and yes I agree with that. However, if you don't factor in additional costs (because we're talking about businesses here), then you're doing it wrong.
Car analogy: you can win a car at a competitions, but you have to factor in maintenance, because if you're piss poor, you won't afford to maintain it. What do you do if it breaks down? How do you pay taxes for it? Etc.
Such a test would resemble dumb Facebook games:
Achievement unlocked: clicked mouse.
Achievement unlocked: typed your name.
BONUS Achievement unlocked: +5 points. Buy more with your credit card!
Your post is so full of urban myths, disinformation and wrong assumptions, that the only true words I could find were "the", "or", "who", "a" and "and".
Well said. I think people who pitch "linux is free" have at best some (indeed free) Linux machines at home or work but never worked in enterprise-grade server software business, nor do they know much about it.
You somehow missed the start of last decade, when market started to become global. From an employer's perspective, the difference between an US-based remote worker and an India-based remote worker is the salary (to a greater extent) and cultural differences (to a smaller extent, includes English proficiency). Speed of communication is just as good (instantaneous regardless of where you are) and cheap (VoIP).
Apart from some relatively small cultural differences (which can be ignored with little effort), everything else is advantageous for the India-based worker: smaller salary, less pretentious, able and willing to work overtime for insignificant compensation, etc. Even if Quality of Work might (arguably) be lower, you can get 5 IN workers for half the price of an US worker and (arguably) have quantity offset quality. But to date, my 10+ years global workforce experience tells me that IN-based work quality is about 60-70% of US-based quality (valid for coding and support, YMMV) for a much, much lower salary. Mexico, for that matter, is worse than that (mainly due to laziness; they're smart but hellishly lazy).
One more thing to mention: the horrible Indian accent and general incompetence you sometimes encounter when calling support has a very simple root cause: the employer got overly greedy and went for the cheapest outsourcing company they found. their mindset was: "why pay 1/4 of the salary and have good customer service when we can pay 1/7 of the salary and fuck our customers?" - Dilbert method FTW.
Note: My global workforce and outsourcing experience covers USA, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, India, Romania, China, Singapore, Japan and Egypt. I could literally write a short novel about each.
That's valid for any OS. All OSs get patches and all patches, regardless of the OS, need to be tested for compliance. Furthermore, a pretty small subset of employees are handling those, and the costs are not nearly enough to justify 6K pounds per machine per year, again, regardless of which OS is used.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some theoretical travel models which don't necessarily involve going the whole distance.
This reminds me of some people in the past saying that a train would never exceed 30 miles per hour because the passengers would suffocate.
...Or a Bussard Reactor, which uses interstellar Hydrogen as fuel. Basically, you don't carry the fuel with you, but gather it as you go. An even more interesting feature is that the faster you go, the more fuel you get...
Of course, this all is highly theoretical at the moment, but finding super-Earths so close (astronomically speaking) should only encourage research efforts in that direction.
Does the calculator account for speed of light limitation? (you can't go faster that 296K km/s)
I think it does, my manual calculations got me pretty close to that.
Ideally, for a human crew, the ship should alternate acceleration and deceleration so that the perceived gravity is always at 1G. Otherwise, you would accelerate for 1 year, then spend 4 years in zero gravity, then decelerate for 1 year at 1G, which is highly NOT recommended.
100 years of travel for 22 light years away.
That's 50 years of acceleration and 50 years of deceleration to travel 22 light years.
So you have to accelerate for 50 years and travel 11 light years in the process.
What's the calculated acceleration?
22 light years is 208,200,000,000,000 km.
Average speed to get there in 100 years is 208,200,000,000,000 km divided by 3,153,600,000 seconds, that's 66019.8 km/s. You need to reach that speed in 25 years of acceleration. That's 0.08 m/square second. Easily achievable, provided you don't have to carry half of Earth's mass in fuel. I think even ionic drives can get that sort of acceleration.
Ideally, considering an acceleration of 1g (constant, disregards time spend in orbit or maneuvering around, etc) you could reach 283,940 km/s in exactly 11 months (335 days).
Now all we have to do is come up with a perfectly working Bussard reactor... (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML)
I win most: I ain't gonna get either :)
gram - grammer - grammest. :)
He's the grammest of them all
Maybe. However, this makes me wonder whether there's still some available wood in their coffin to hammer THIS nail in.
Old and Weary, the Terminator Returns once again, this time looking for a cozy retirement place. the world, however, does not agree with him...
He reads data off a herring and writes it on what he wears.
Companies make bad decisions all the time. The real question is: would they back off and reinstate the previous state of things? In this case, whether it was intentional or a mistake is less relevant; public backlash prompted them to reconsider (or realize the mistake) and the outcome is eventually positive. Did they lie about what happened? i don't know and frankly I don't care. All I care for is what the outcome is.
Yeah well I call that bullshit, no offense. 2250 hours worked per year translate to 56,25 weeks assuming 40 hours/week, that's more than a year's worth of work. It means they worked more than 40 hours per week, every week, no vacation, nothing, and that on average? Please...
What I meant, anyway, wasn't that they work a small amount of hours per week, but that they don't accomplish as much as they should, that's the issue here.
Also, it depends on what do you compare against.
On average, someone from India would boost their output if you ask them too, in a measurable way. Someone from Mexico, on the other hand, will appear to do so, whenever possible. Of course, it depends on the output type. If they're producing nails, then a simple count would reveal the truth. If they're working support tickets, on the other way... I have quite a few stories in my sleeve on that, but a short general example is as follows:
Eac member of support had a (badly designed) workload target of 25 tickets per day. Each analyst from India was reporting an average of 20-22 tickets a day, and each member from Chile and Mexico was reporting an average of 7-29 tickets a day. You would say they're working harder than their Indian counterparts, and the general idea was like this for years, until I came along as LoB "report builder" (so-to-speak).
Now I built and run the following monthly reports ([country is either IN or MX]):
1. - Sum of non-unique tickets worked by all analysts from [country]
2. - Sum of unique tickets worked by analysts from [country]
3. - Average daily tickets worked by analysts from [country]
For Mexico, value of report 1. was almost 4 times higher than value of report 2. (actual number 3.89)
For India, it was a bit over 2 (2.17)
I was puzzled until I checked what was happening. Turned out analysts from Mexico were passing the same ticket around, so that each got a +1 in their personal tickets worked count. neat, isn't it. Analyst 1 would send an e-mail to the customer, analyst 2 would change the ticket status, analyst 3 would put a nice note, and so on. That's because they KNEW what are they measured against and were happily circumventing the system.
No further comment.
If you're only considering administration, yes. However, the costs skyrocket if you encounter an issue where some deep inner workings of the OS need to be debugged. Admins won't help you there. You might want to get support straight from the source. Furthermore, there are critical environments where your incurred losses due to outages and lack of official support greatly offset the savings. Think "12 hours of outage cost the company more than 5 years of support license".
I don't even want to start thinking of really critical environments where an outage might cost lives.
Oracle Database is free to download and install. Oh you want support for it? Tough luck.
On the other hand, Microsoft licenses include support to start with, albeit basic. You indeed need to pay extra for the whole 9 yards.
Saying "Linux is free" is too vague to make a point. You need to say "Linux is free to download and install and use" - and yes I agree with that. However, if you don't factor in additional costs (because we're talking about businesses here), then you're doing it wrong.
Car analogy: you can win a car at a competitions, but you have to factor in maintenance, because if you're piss poor, you won't afford to maintain it. What do you do if it breaks down? How do you pay taxes for it? Etc.
I guess it depends on job type. I've been dealing mainly with IT Support jobs, Call Centers and the like.
...And beyond. Goverments, by definition, abide to the above rules fully.
Good point!
Such a test would resemble dumb Facebook games:
Achievement unlocked: clicked mouse.
Achievement unlocked: typed your name.
BONUS Achievement unlocked: +5 points. Buy more with your credit card!
Your post is so full of urban myths, disinformation and wrong assumptions, that the only true words I could find were "the", "or", "who", "a" and "and".
Maybe... there are no plans to speak of?
Wishful thinking. If I had moderator points, I would be torn between Funny and Insightful.
Well said. I think people who pitch "linux is free" have at best some (indeed free) Linux machines at home or work but never worked in enterprise-grade server software business, nor do they know much about it.
You somehow missed the start of last decade, when market started to become global.
From an employer's perspective, the difference between an US-based remote worker and an India-based remote worker is the salary (to a greater extent) and cultural differences (to a smaller extent, includes English proficiency). Speed of communication is just as good (instantaneous regardless of where you are) and cheap (VoIP).
Apart from some relatively small cultural differences (which can be ignored with little effort), everything else is advantageous for the India-based worker: smaller salary, less pretentious, able and willing to work overtime for insignificant compensation, etc. Even if Quality of Work might (arguably) be lower, you can get 5 IN workers for half the price of an US worker and (arguably) have quantity offset quality. But to date, my 10+ years global workforce experience tells me that IN-based work quality is about 60-70% of US-based quality (valid for coding and support, YMMV) for a much, much lower salary. Mexico, for that matter, is worse than that (mainly due to laziness; they're smart but hellishly lazy).
One more thing to mention: the horrible Indian accent and general incompetence you sometimes encounter when calling support has a very simple root cause: the employer got overly greedy and went for the cheapest outsourcing company they found. their mindset was: "why pay 1/4 of the salary and have good customer service when we can pay 1/7 of the salary and fuck our customers?" - Dilbert method FTW.
Note: My global workforce and outsourcing experience covers USA, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, India, Romania, China, Singapore, Japan and Egypt. I could literally write a short novel about each.
Usually, Jacob is the user.
That's valid for any OS. All OSs get patches and all patches, regardless of the OS, need to be tested for compliance. Furthermore, a pretty small subset of employees are handling those, and the costs are not nearly enough to justify 6K pounds per machine per year, again, regardless of which OS is used.