Perhaps I am an evil socio-path but what you have described is a given for EVERYTHING in life. Everything you do is done on a risk vs reward analysis.
Narrator: A mouth is opened and a chocolate bar is put in. The person later dies a horrible slow painful death as their body becomes resistant to insulin, their toes rotting and finally their heart stopping. Do we stop putting chocolate in the mouth? Take the number of chocolate bars eaten A, multiply by the risk B, multiply by the average medical cost, C. A time B Time X equals X. If X is less than the enjoyment of the chocolate bar, the mouth still eats one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of mouths?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Where do these mouths live?
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. You are focussing on the cost to NASA, which is fair enough, and you were looking at the total cost of the system including transfer vehicle. I was only looking at the cost of the launch system on a current per launch cost, excluding any additional customer specific costs. I wasn't actually talking about the cost of a resupply mission as that will always be more expensive because of the transfer vehicle, if nothing else.
Vega costs 22 million euro for the rocket c $25 million USD for a payload of 1963kg H2B costs 133m for a payload of 19,000kg Falcon 9 costs $61m for a payload of 13,150kg
On top of all of these costs have to go the costs of the transfer vehicles and any other compliance costs that are required.
As for the costs of insurance and the like being included in the quoted costs that is outside the information that I have been able to find. I had worked on the premise that those prices were the cost of the launch vehicle alone and didn't include anything else. I haven't been able to find what contract price is in place for the HTV launches. I am not trying to say that the SpaceX launches cost NASA $61m per supply mission, it clearly costs more than that. All I was saying was that for the launcher and launcher alone the Falcon is currently cheaper per kg than the others.
I will also add that there are things the Falcon is unable to carry items that the H2N and the Ariane 5 would be capable of because it is a significantly narrower design (c3m diameter to 5m+). You choose the best vehicle for your needs.
Fair enough. In this case you system should be treated as hostile when you come back into the office. It doesn't have to effect you even in the office, it just means the network you are on should be quarantined from anything that may be sensitive.
Also it sounds like your role is IT focussed to at least a degree. If you are on site making your employers software work on other peoples system you must be operating in a role of some IT trust. This is not the same requirements as for people who have no idea how computers really work.
IT security needs to be build around usage cases and people need to be able to do their jobs. But giving admin access across the board where it is not required is a recipe for disaster.
I think ZFS is perfect for the server environment, I run it there myself. I was commenting on ACs running it on a Pi.
I'm not sure that ZFS is the best solution for a desktop though. But that may be because of how I envisage desktop usage. To me ZFS' biggest strengths lie in its raid-z and checksumming capabilities and how that is used to protect your data on a dedicated data storage system. I'm not sure I see any advantages to having ZFS as the file system on a single drived desktop or laptop however.
God yes this. Linux mint = drop in install dvd, turn on system, click install linux mint, fill in 2 pages of questions, wait, reboot, done. System is installed with just about everything 99% of users need in a default system. 1hr
Windows 7 = drop in dvd, turn on, select your version, fill in 2 pages of questions, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, log in - everything is looking shite and at 800 x 600, install updates, wait, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, reboot. System is up but 50% of the device drivers are missing. Crap, spend hours trying to workout what random unnamed device is to find driver off a website (what you think they still have the original device driver disk???), install virus scanners, & office, update IE if you don't want to give them something better. Yay we are finally working 8 hours later....
My office is completely based on Linux and all the people working there use their machines for basic word processing and internet type activities. When someone new starts they get a little shocked by the login screen not being windows, and after asking where the internet button is and being shown the firefox button they are pretty much away.
None of them have any idea what is happening under the hood and they simply don't care. After a few weeks someone will show them virtual desktops and it will be a whole round of amazement. I've even given linux to my mother in law and she has been happy (as much as it is physically possible for her to be happy of course:P)
Block this, a million times block this. This is the fastest way to have your machines falling over.
You are in a corporate environment where software is purchased and licensed. What are you going to download from the internet that can do your job better, that is free, legal for you to use, and not completely covered in stuff that will bork your machine?
Taking out of it the machines falling over and crap getting into your network. As a general rule you do not want your employees doing things in multiple different ways. It makes quality control almost impossible, training harder, makes machines unique to users and a whole host of other issues. If there is an issue with the software an employee has and it is limiting their productivity then it needs to go through the process determining where the problem is and what is the solution. If there is a solution that improves productivity that solution will then be rolled out to all relevant employees.
Are you saying that you don't use a standard set of tools to do your job? That everytime you go to a new site you have to install something new, that will never ever be used again and then uninstall it at the end of the job?
Honestly I find that really hard to understand. I get it that it may be the first time you go to a job you don't have a particular thing installed, but the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time? Or are you never going to repeat customers?
Finally if it is the case that your machine requires admin access because of all the shit you have to install with your job and there is no way around it, your machine should be treated as hostile. Your laptop should be excluded from accessing the internal networks of your employer and only allowed access via something like citrix.
If you are running ZFS on a raspberry Pi you will see massive performance degradation on anything that causes a write. ZFS is very heavy on using ram for cache and will disable sections of its functionality and hugely throttle writes when there is only a small amount of ram present.
To put this into a real life example, Freenas will disable cache read and write for ZFS if you have less than 4gb of system ram.
There isn't anything stopping you running ZFS on the Pi but your performance will suck.
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system. The Dragon is essentially cargo in this instance. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't necessary to dock with the ISS, in the same way I haven't counted the cost of the HTV transfer vehicle in the cost of the H2B launch system.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
One thing to consider is that you don't know that that wasn't the case for at least some of the people on AM. AM is a way to find other people, it doesn't help you cheat per se'. I could easily see a case where someone is on AM with full knowledge of their partner, but on the proviso that they were discrete. Once that information is in the public discrete has gone out the window.
America has very puritanical views on sex, if you were to look at France as a comparison though extra-marital affairs are much more common and are often ok as long as partner is not exposed to it in public.
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development. And they were specifying what the rockets needed to be capable of. SpaceX represents to NASA an additional way of getting to space and an opportunity to apply commercial pressure to the existing suppliers. Future contracts for launches will most likely be at a significantly lower rate.
Agreed. The more players the better, and the more solutions the better. This is seen in SpaceX's return capacity and in the H2B's seriously wide footprint meaning it can carry items to orbit that won't physically fit on the Falcon 9. Each launch system has its place and if SpaceX makes the costs cheaper we all benefit.
Not completely. There are items that the H2B is the only rocket that can carry them as they are physically too large for the Falcon or other lifters. Cost per pound becomes irrelevant if you can't make your item fit on the smaller launchers.
The Falcon 9 is 3.66m in diameter the H2B is 5.2m sometimes that is going to make all the difference.
Falcon 9 is 17 successful from 19 launches and only 1 of those was a catastrophic failure, the other was a T-2 abort. The H2B is only on it's 5th launch so we don't know if it is as reliable or not yet.
Japan's vehicle has the highest payload of any of the current launch systems but it is also a hugely expensive launch system. The cost per launch is around 15 Billion yen, $121m USD. They are currently developing the H3 as the successor to the H2B launch system with the primary target of reducing the cost by half.
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
The Falcon 9 has a lift capacity of 13,000kg to LEO vs 16,500 for the H2B.
Offer your BYO $40 / month no contract plan, offer your $40/month + $22/month for an iphone plan, offer your $60 month get your phone "free" plan 24 month contract. Having a customer signed up for a guaranteed 24 months has to have a value to a carrier, it may only be $2 a month but it's still there.
I agree with the pressure of making them offer the no contract options, but why have the dropped the contract options? Were they now so unattractive that nobody wanted them?
Fair enough. I'm just used to seeing all the options of BYO plans, monthly plans, pre-paid plans, 24 month contracts with a subsidised phone and phone add-on packages so it seemed strange to ditch one of those options and I was wondering why.
I must be missing something, but why do this? Offer monthly BYO plans and offer 2 year subsidised phone plans. These are two different market segments and I would have thought locking someone in on a 2 year contract would have been a good thing.
I live in Brisbane and have travelled extensively. Almost everywhere I go I find the pollution a shock compared to home. My first time overseas was doing the Aussie in England thing and I found the levels of air pollution in London just insane. Now, having travelled a lot more I've learnt that actually London isn't that bad compared to others. Moscow in 2007 was a pretty big shock, the density of the car traffic in central Moscow was insane and they hadn't managed to achieve the Euro 3 fuel quality levels then. Walking around the streets made my chest hurt.
I'm headed to China early next year for 3 weeks which will be my first trip there. Should be an interesting one.
According to this 1 Xi'an is the worst in the world. With Phoenix being the worst American city at 97th worst, LA is 107th, London 171st http://www.numbeo.com/pollutio...
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer the subset of Wonkas called the Oompas
Doh A times B Times C = X.....
Perhaps I am an evil socio-path but what you have described is a given for EVERYTHING in life. Everything you do is done on a risk vs reward analysis.
Narrator:
A mouth is opened and a chocolate bar is put in. The person later dies a horrible slow painful death as their body becomes resistant to insulin, their toes rotting and finally their heart stopping. Do we stop putting chocolate in the mouth? Take the number of chocolate bars eaten A, multiply by the risk B, multiply by the average medical cost, C. A time B Time X equals X. If X is less than the enjoyment of the chocolate bar, the mouth still eats one.
Business woman on plane:
Are there a lot of these kinds of mouths?
Narrator:
You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane:
Where do these mouths live?
Narrator:
Everywhere.
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. You are focussing on the cost to NASA, which is fair enough, and you were looking at the total cost of the system including transfer vehicle. I was only looking at the cost of the launch system on a current per launch cost, excluding any additional customer specific costs. I wasn't actually talking about the cost of a resupply mission as that will always be more expensive because of the transfer vehicle, if nothing else.
Vega costs 22 million euro for the rocket c $25 million USD for a payload of 1963kg
H2B costs 133m for a payload of 19,000kg
Falcon 9 costs $61m for a payload of 13,150kg
On top of all of these costs have to go the costs of the transfer vehicles and any other compliance costs that are required.
As for the costs of insurance and the like being included in the quoted costs that is outside the information that I have been able to find. I had worked on the premise that those prices were the cost of the launch vehicle alone and didn't include anything else. I haven't been able to find what contract price is in place for the HTV launches. I am not trying to say that the SpaceX launches cost NASA $61m per supply mission, it clearly costs more than that. All I was saying was that for the launcher and launcher alone the Falcon is currently cheaper per kg than the others.
I will also add that there are things the Falcon is unable to carry items that the H2N and the Ariane 5 would be capable of because it is a significantly narrower design (c3m diameter to 5m+). You choose the best vehicle for your needs.
But it does it their spouses friends find out and plaster it all over their facebook page.
Fair enough. In this case you system should be treated as hostile when you come back into the office. It doesn't have to effect you even in the office, it just means the network you are on should be quarantined from anything that may be sensitive.
Also it sounds like your role is IT focussed to at least a degree. If you are on site making your employers software work on other peoples system you must be operating in a role of some IT trust. This is not the same requirements as for people who have no idea how computers really work.
IT security needs to be build around usage cases and people need to be able to do their jobs. But giving admin access across the board where it is not required is a recipe for disaster.
I think ZFS is perfect for the server environment, I run it there myself. I was commenting on ACs running it on a Pi.
I'm not sure that ZFS is the best solution for a desktop though. But that may be because of how I envisage desktop usage. To me ZFS' biggest strengths lie in its raid-z and checksumming capabilities and how that is used to protect your data on a dedicated data storage system. I'm not sure I see any advantages to having ZFS as the file system on a single drived desktop or laptop however.
God yes this. Linux mint = drop in install dvd, turn on system, click install linux mint, fill in 2 pages of questions, wait, reboot, done. System is installed with just about everything 99% of users need in a default system. 1hr
Windows 7 = drop in dvd, turn on, select your version, fill in 2 pages of questions, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, log in - everything is looking shite and at 800 x 600, install updates, wait, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, reboot, wait, reboot. System is up but 50% of the device drivers are missing. Crap, spend hours trying to workout what random unnamed device is to find driver off a website (what you think they still have the original device driver disk???), install virus scanners, & office, update IE if you don't want to give them something better. Yay we are finally working 8 hours later....
My office is completely based on Linux and all the people working there use their machines for basic word processing and internet type activities. When someone new starts they get a little shocked by the login screen not being windows, and after asking where the internet button is and being shown the firefox button they are pretty much away.
None of them have any idea what is happening under the hood and they simply don't care. After a few weeks someone will show them virtual desktops and it will be a whole round of amazement. I've even given linux to my mother in law and she has been happy (as much as it is physically possible for her to be happy of course :P)
Block this, a million times block this. This is the fastest way to have your machines falling over.
You are in a corporate environment where software is purchased and licensed. What are you going to download from the internet that can do your job better, that is free, legal for you to use, and not completely covered in stuff that will bork your machine?
Taking out of it the machines falling over and crap getting into your network. As a general rule you do not want your employees doing things in multiple different ways. It makes quality control almost impossible, training harder, makes machines unique to users and a whole host of other issues. If there is an issue with the software an employee has and it is limiting their productivity then it needs to go through the process determining where the problem is and what is the solution. If there is a solution that improves productivity that solution will then be rolled out to all relevant employees.
Are you saying that you don't use a standard set of tools to do your job? That everytime you go to a new site you have to install something new, that will never ever be used again and then uninstall it at the end of the job?
Honestly I find that really hard to understand. I get it that it may be the first time you go to a job you don't have a particular thing installed, but the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time? Or are you never going to repeat customers?
Finally if it is the case that your machine requires admin access because of all the shit you have to install with your job and there is no way around it, your machine should be treated as hostile. Your laptop should be excluded from accessing the internal networks of your employer and only allowed access via something like citrix.
If you are running ZFS on a raspberry Pi you will see massive performance degradation on anything that causes a write. ZFS is very heavy on using ram for cache and will disable sections of its functionality and hugely throttle writes when there is only a small amount of ram present.
To put this into a real life example, Freenas will disable cache read and write for ZFS if you have less than 4gb of system ram.
There isn't anything stopping you running ZFS on the Pi but your performance will suck.
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system. The Dragon is essentially cargo in this instance. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't necessary to dock with the ISS, in the same way I haven't counted the cost of the HTV transfer vehicle in the cost of the H2B launch system.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
One thing to consider is that you don't know that that wasn't the case for at least some of the people on AM. AM is a way to find other people, it doesn't help you cheat per se'. I could easily see a case where someone is on AM with full knowledge of their partner, but on the proviso that they were discrete. Once that information is in the public discrete has gone out the window.
America has very puritanical views on sex, if you were to look at France as a comparison though extra-marital affairs are much more common and are often ok as long as partner is not exposed to it in public.
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development. And they were specifying what the rockets needed to be capable of. SpaceX represents to NASA an additional way of getting to space and an opportunity to apply commercial pressure to the existing suppliers. Future contracts for launches will most likely be at a significantly lower rate.
Agreed. The more players the better, and the more solutions the better. This is seen in SpaceX's return capacity and in the H2B's seriously wide footprint meaning it can carry items to orbit that won't physically fit on the Falcon 9. Each launch system has its place and if SpaceX makes the costs cheaper we all benefit.
Not completely. There are items that the H2B is the only rocket that can carry them as they are physically too large for the Falcon or other lifters. Cost per pound becomes irrelevant if you can't make your item fit on the smaller launchers.
The Falcon 9 is 3.66m in diameter the H2B is 5.2m sometimes that is going to make all the difference.
Falcon 9 is 17 successful from 19 launches and only 1 of those was a catastrophic failure, the other was a T-2 abort. The H2B is only on it's 5th launch so we don't know if it is as reliable or not yet.
Japan's vehicle has the highest payload of any of the current launch systems but it is also a hugely expensive launch system. The cost per launch is around 15 Billion yen, $121m USD. They are currently developing the H3 as the successor to the H2B launch system with the primary target of reducing the cost by half.
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
The Falcon 9 has a lift capacity of 13,000kg to LEO vs 16,500 for the H2B.
So it depends what race you are looking at.
But why stop offering it?
Offer your BYO $40 / month no contract plan, offer your $40 /month + $22/month for an iphone plan, offer your $60 month get your phone "free" plan 24 month contract. Having a customer signed up for a guaranteed 24 months has to have a value to a carrier, it may only be $2 a month but it's still there.
I agree with the pressure of making them offer the no contract options, but why have the dropped the contract options? Were they now so unattractive that nobody wanted them?
Fair enough. I'm just used to seeing all the options of BYO plans, monthly plans, pre-paid plans, 24 month contracts with a subsidised phone and phone add-on packages so it seemed strange to ditch one of those options and I was wondering why.
I get that if you are the customer you would want this, but why are Sprint doing it?
I must be missing something, but why do this? Offer monthly BYO plans and offer 2 year subsidised phone plans. These are two different market segments and I would have thought locking someone in on a 2 year contract would have been a good thing.
I live in Brisbane and have travelled extensively. Almost everywhere I go I find the pollution a shock compared to home. My first time overseas was doing the Aussie in England thing and I found the levels of air pollution in London just insane. Now, having travelled a lot more I've learnt that actually London isn't that bad compared to others. Moscow in 2007 was a pretty big shock, the density of the car traffic in central Moscow was insane and they hadn't managed to achieve the Euro 3 fuel quality levels then. Walking around the streets made my chest hurt.
I'm headed to China early next year for 3 weeks which will be my first trip there. Should be an interesting one.
According to this report no Chinese city gets into the top 10 most polluted....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world...
According to this 1 Xi'an is the worst in the world. With Phoenix being the worst American city at 97th worst, LA is 107th, London 171st
http://www.numbeo.com/pollutio...