Even as the dollar falls, Chinese imports become no less or no more expensive because the exchange rate has stayed the same.
Don't confuse a currency peg with the purchasing power. A currency peg does not mean that the value of imports/exports remains fixed. You are also assuming that the Dollar and Renminbi are the only two currencies out there. I'll try to explain because it's not entirely intuitive. (and I'll try to keep it simple because it isn't - hopefully I've gotten my cash flows right...)
If the US buys goods from China, capital (money) *has* to flow into China. There is now a smaller supply of capital (money) in the US and a larger money supply in China. When the money supply gets larger, the value of a unit of currency (absent government action) falls.
The next time China wants to buy (import) some goods, they have all this extra supply of dollars. Excess supply reduces the real value of their currency so they can buy less goods/services. Having a "cheap" currency makes exports cheaper but imports more expensive.
Notice that exchange rates haven't even been mentioned yet. With a floating currency, the Renminbi (China's currency) would devalue in the Foreign Exchange (FX) markets. But to keep this from happening, China does something clever. First, they do not permit the Renminbi to be traded in Foreign Exchange markets keeping the supply low. They maintain the exact exchange rate by buying/selling US Bonds (dollars but in the future) with the dollars they got earlier from selling goods.
One problem is that this can lead to speculation. (Read about George Soros and the Bank of England for details) To avoid this problem China keeps a HUGE foreign reserve (over $600 billion and rising) to keep speculators at bay, even though it is widely recognized that China is enjoying a 20-40% advantage in exports. Since China's economy is export driven, they aren't about to change that suddenly either. Yes, they will have to adjust the peg to keep inflation in check but it's going to happen gradually. I'm getting aside however.
The point is, that a currency peg does NOT keep the prices of goods between the US and China constant. The US can't keep printing dollars and selling them to China forever without inflation occuring. Likewise China can't keep selling goods to the US for increasingly more plentiful (and thus less valuable in the world market - remember there are other countries besides the US and China) dollars.
WHY, do companies and stores think that NOT showing ID when using a credit card/debit card is something that people would want?
Generally as a customer I don't. Not that I think showing ID is bad idea but I generally find the signature and to a lesser extend ID security measures to be as pointless as most of the airline "security". They're half heartedly implemented, irritating, and as implemented don't really do much to stop crime. It's appearance of security without substance. I wouldn't mind people asking for ID except that almost no one does, so what's the point? And the signature matching is a stupid since any thief with half a brain (admitedly some lack even half) will just look at the card and make at least a half-hearted effort to copy it. It's not like he has to look hard for it...
Let me be clear. I have the mistfortune of being a man with a name that is very rarely associated with the masculine gender. As irritating as that is to me, I should get asked for my ID all the time. But I don't which tells me that the the store management and credit card companies don't really percieve it as a problem. And they have the data to know whether it is or isn't. It's not like they're guessing. Furthermore, when I do get asked for ID, it's almost always at places like an airport (where I've been asked for my ID 20 times) when buying a $4 magazine, never for the $1000 printer. As a customer, I'll admit that being asked for ID is irritating and I don't like being regarded as a potential criminal but if it were a widely implemented security measure, I could deal. But since the credit card companies and most retailers don't regard it as enough of a problem (actions speak louder than words) to ask for ID consistently, I'd rather they save me the irritation and not bother at all.
It gets repeated here ad-nauseum that authentication consists of some combination of what you have, what you are and what you know. The signature is worthless as a security measure because it is simply two instances of something you have in the same item. Someone who takes my credit card also has my signature. Asking for photo ID sort of gets at what you are, though it can be forged by an ambitious criminal. But it could slow down the smaller thefts were it actually used. A pin code is actually useful IMO because it is something you know but is not used (for cost reasons mostly) for credit cards here in the US. And unlike biometric ID, it can be changed if there is a mixup.
While I'm venting, what really irritates me is when they have those swipe-it-yourself pads but still ask to see the signature! I've already mentioned that I think signature comparison is worthless as a security measure, but this practice just wastes both my time and the clerk's time. Furthermore they don't physically have the card at the right time if the credit card company tells them to hold the card. If they want to see my signature, the clerk should swipe the card him/herself and check. By having me do it, they don't save any time and they don't improve security. If they are going to ask for something they should ask for ID at that point, not a signature.
Fast Followers and Disruptive Technology
on
Can TiVo be Saved?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We'll see how this plays out. Either the technical superiority of TiVo will win out or the lower-cost, lower-quality options that the cable companies can offer will win out. Actually it's likely that both will win and retain some part of the market, the question is, how large a part for each respectively?
If you haven't already it sounds like you need to read The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen. The DVRs the cable companies put out don't have to be better to put TiVo out of business. They just have to be good enough, cheaper and easy to get. Being a technology leader is only valuable if three things are true. First, that you can stay a technology leader and protect that position. (through futher innovation, patents, etc) Second, that your technology leadership either lets you be the low cost provider OR that customers value your technology such that it lets you charge a premium for your services. Third, that you have economicly viable access to the right distribution channels. TiVo is arguably the technology leader in the DVR industry but I think it is failing on the maybe the second and definitely the third conditions.
Let me give you an example. Most of us criticize (rightly IMO) Microsoft for a lack of innovation. But being the leader isn't always the best business strategy. Economists call Microsoft a fast follower. They don't innovate. They don't know how to. And if they tried, they'd fail. But what they do very successfully is watch the leaders in the market and then copy their innovations while leveraging their strengths in marketing, distribution. OS/2 challeged Windows NT a few years back. Result? Windows 95. It wasn't better than OS/2 technologically but it was good enough and Microsoft controled the distribution channels. (plus IBM shot themselves in the foot repeatedly) They can learn from the innovations and mistakes of the innovators and come out with a good enough product that most customers will buy. Sure, it's not a glamorous strategy but being a fast follower can be very, very effective.
The downside of being a fast follower? You might not be able to catch the market leader if you aren't quick enough. Microsoft hasn't been able to catch Intuit with their Microsoft Money product despite years of trying. They got caught on the wrong side of an installed base. Being a successful fast follower requires lots of resources and an acute ear for what the market is telling you. But it also means that if there is a fundamental shift in the market or if you misread the market, you're screwed. Microsoft may have be screwed because Open Source could be one of those tectonic shifts ("disruptive technologies" in my Christensen's terminologies) that fundamentally alters the market place such that their own organizational structure no longer permits them to compete effectively. Whether this is actually the case remains the be seen.
The other problem with being a fast follower is that if you are too good, you end up a monopoly with no on to copy from. As a result a successful fast follower either stagnates or has to move into other industries to grow. Microsoft is in this position right now. Their core OS and Office products are stagnant monopolies. Very profitable but unlikely to provide massive growth. So Microsoft is having to branch out into other lines of business. Dell is doing somewhat the same thing. They're so successful in selling PC's they are having to branch into printers, PDAs and other technologies to continue to grow.
Actually this is why I personally stopped buying Lexmark. Prior to this, I had three Lexmark printers. When it came time to replace, I went with an HP. Oh, I also picked HP because they have very good Linux support and Lexmark's Linux support sucks or is non-existent.
Inkjet or Laser? Reason I ask is that I have two Lexmark laser Printers (a 4039-10R and a Optra T610) sitting in the room with me and they are fantastic. I've had the 4039 for a decade. Built like tanks, great driver support (linux, windows, OS X and even OS/2 in the past - can even use HP drivers in a pinch), print over 12,000 pages per toner cartrige (works out to less than $0.02 per page in ink versus $0.08-0.15 for an inkjet) and really easy to maintain. I can say first hand that your comment about linux driver support isn't true for Lexmark laser printers.
I haven't used Lexmark's inkjets but if they're anything like the piece-of-crap HP inkjets I've used I'm not surprised you had problems. I have an HP d135 multifunction. Got it about 2.5 years ago and it's broken 3 times. I got one of those ripoff service agreements with Best Buy and I'm glad I did. I guarantee HP or Best Buy has lost money on that unit. I don't print enough in color for them to make their money back on the ink. If I need a lot of color prints I just go to Kinko's. It's cheaper, faster and less aggrivation.
I have an Epson inkjet too. Still has some of the problems common to all inkjets and isn't exactly a tank but it's so far been a better purchase than my HP. Print heads stay aligned better (less wasted ink), has better color accuracy, doesn't try to feed 5 sheets of paper at once and so far has been more reliable.
Point is, that I think most people would be better served with a laser printer these days. They're faster, more reliable, better constructed, have better print quality, cheaper to operate, and you don't have to change toner every third page you print or worry about print head alignment, and generally all around better in every way I can think of except up front cost. I guess they're a bit noisier but not enough to matter. Unless you do almost no printing, a laser is totally the way to go.
Get some of these from CompUSA. They help cooling a little and help with vibrations a lot. Of course you need free 5 inch drive bays. If you have drive rails (like me) the hole spacing may be non-standard and require some drilling, but that's easy enough if you take your time and measure carefully.
I put all my efforts and support in Suse about 2 years ago and all my eggs in the Linux basket (in general) about 4 years ago.
I did the same thing. There's been a few warts (configuring Samba, some graphics issues which weren't well documented) but it's generally been good. SuSE is pretty easy to work with, reasonably polished. They could do a better job keeping up with some of the big name open source software like Mozilla through the official update channels (they're usually a few versions behind) but since I can install that myself, no biggie. SuSE has been good to me. Easy to install and stable as heck.
Only serious problem I'm running into is a with an Adaptec 1210SA controller that Suse doesn't like. (I understand it's more of an Adaptec shitty-driver problem than a Suse problem - anyone have any recommendations on a 32 bit SATA raid controller that actaully works?) I have a workaround though so it's not an emergency...
I replaced my case fans with Papst 8412 NGL fans which only emit 12db; basically silent. I tried one of the PC Power and Cooling Silencer units and it's a fine power supply but still pretty noisy.
I put some new rubber feet I picked up from Home Dept (about $3 each) which are normally used for door stops to help dampen case vibrations.
I switched over the 7200 RPM Seagate hard drives from the 10000RPM Maxtor/IBMs I was using. The old drives were fine but rather noisy.
I replaced my graphics card fan with a Zalman Heat Pipe system which emits no noise at all.
I picked up these hard drive coolers with rubber shock absorbers from CompUSA which further helps dampen case vibration, and helps keepd the drive quieter. My case uses drive rails and I had to drill an extra hole in the drive rails to make them compatible.
I also installed this Anti Noise Kit from CompUSA. One caution is keep at least one screw from the case touching both the power supply and the case with no padding. Helps keep a ground between the power supply and the case.
I also bought some rounded cables (yes I'm aware of the crosstalk issues but they haven't been a problem) which helps cooling. I got some cable wraps and zip ties to keep the cables bundled and out of the air flow as much as possible.
Installed a HUGE Thermalright SLK800 heat sink with a Pabst fan (above) to keep the processor cool and silent. This actually dropped by processor temp by several degrees in addition to being quiter.
I installed Melamine foam from Home Depot throughout the case to dampen noise.
End result? Nearly silent. Quieter than my thinkpad laptop which doesn't make much noise. I still want a quieter power supply fan though I'm reasonably satisfied with the one I have. Basically anything rated at over 20db is too loud by my standards. Yes, many people will tell you you can hear it and that's true if you are 10+ feet away or have damaged hearing from too much loud music.:-) Right near the unit however you can hear it just fine and case vibrations will often amplify sounds.
Obviously if you want a machine with super high performance, you may need better cooling that I do and better cooling usually equals more noise. My machine is a linux file/print server so I'm not looking for maximal performance, though I do have a SCSI drive system in it. Make sure you keep the air pathways clear if you use the fans I recommend because they don't blow a lot of air. Don't block any ventilation though you can use air filters if you feel the need. Every so often get a can of compressed air and blow out any dust in the system which will help with the cooling.
Vehicle crashes are way more complex than anything we could currently think of.
Nonsense. Vehicle crashes are actually fairly straightforward to model so long as you have sufficient data. And trust me, the data exists. I've worked for several years as a simulation engineer for a major Tier-One auto supplier.
Every part on a car would need to be tested for strength, width, height, depth, shape, mass, the connections holding it to another part, and that bolt tested...
Guess what? Automotive firms do this. All of it. Finite element analysis, Dynamic simulations, virtual crash testing, genetic product shaping, and a host of other computer simulation is applied to products as well as the processes used to make them these days. Not only did we simulate parts like tubing but we also simulated the hydro-forming and stamping processes used to make the parts. It's a LOT cheaper than real world prototyping and destructive testing.
Sure there is a lot of number crunching but in case you hadn't noticed, computing power is cheap. The physics and materials science involved is well understood and there are easy ways to create 3D models of entire vehicles. The models don't run in real time but that's not necessary to get useful data.
As a juror I would never trust a computer simulation.
Depends on the simulation. Remember this phrase, "all models are wrong, some models are useful". Every non-trivial financial, physical, chemical, process and any other sort of model any engineer creates is wrong. The only real question is by how much. A simulation model could provide useful insight. Heck lawyers are creating models of their interpretation of events in the court room. Would I convict someone of a crime simply on a computer model alone? Hell no! (and remember I make simulation models all the time) A simulation's results are highly dependant on the data fed into it so no they cannot tell the whole story.
All a simulation can do is tell you whether a certain set of conditions is likely to produce a particular result. Interpreted correctly, a simulation will never give an answer, merely a probability of a result given the conditions and assumptions. Engineers don't get paid to make simulations. That's actually rather easy (most of the time) believe it or not. We get paid to create useful models and interpret the results. To give them meaning and context. Could a simulation be useful in a trial? By itself, no. But as a part of the evidence? Sure. One just has to be VERY careful about understanding the assumptions and data that went into it. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that..
They already do this through a tax on gasoline/diesel. Drive more and you'll use more gasoline. It even accounts for people with more inefficient vehicles. It's simple and easy to enforce. What would be the point of tracking mileage via GPS other than to invade privacy?
I am selling my T3 Tungsten Palm right now, and it's because I just don't use it. I mean, I *want* to use it, or, more accurately, I want to *need* to use it, but it's just not something I keep with me constantly.
Interestingly I had just the opposite experience with mine. Being a bit of a road warrior might have something to do with it. I had a old palm but it was too awkward to use. (no bluetooth, no digital ink notes, no voice recorder, awkward syncing, etc...) The T3 was the first PDA with enough features which was easy enough to sync with my phone and computer. Who wants to carry around a bunch of wires after all? I use it to record phone conversations on speakerphone, joting down small notes with the digitial ink, to-do list, address book, and calendar mostly. When I'm on the road, it provides convenient email access via bluetooth/GPRS. The T3 is good enough I actually use it which I can't say for any paper based system or previous PDA.
I actually revel in not keeping it with me constantly. Instead of an all in one device like a Treo (which is great, not criticizing) I can carry just a cell phone most of the time. But thanks to bluetooth, when I carry my PDA the two devices act beautifully in concert. I don't have to keep every phone number in my phone, I just touch dial with my PDA and it makes a bluetooth connection automatically and dials. Same with internet access. If Palm wants to save the current PDA form factor they should be pushing Bluetooth actively, but no one seems to care. (and no WiFi is NOT a substitute for bluetooth anymore than ethernet is a subsitute for firewire)
Now not all is perfect. I've complained loudly before that the software on the computer side of things is pathetic. I have 4 incompatible calendars, am basically stuck with Palm Desktop for syncing anything except adress books & maybe calendars. And heaven forbid the battery runs dry (all too easy with a T3) The software though is the most annoying problem and in my opinion why most people quit eventually. It's just not easy enough. The one button cradle was innovative 10 years ago but it needs to be easier still and Palm hasn't done a damn thing since. I should be able to import my contact info into ANY address book and sync with ANY calendar I choose seemlessly. Applications should either be stored in flash memory or reinstalled with the next sync should they disappear. Syncing isn't just supposed to be about backing up.
you could download cygwin and you can get all the same functionality
Cygwin is great too but it fails the mom test. Plus installing Cygwin just for rsync is like using a sledgehammer to drive a thumb tack. Great tool but serious overkill... Most of us here can deal with it I think, but SyncBack is a LOT easier if you have a Windows system.
I even have Cygwin on my machine but I don't use it much since I have a linux system right behind me. I use my Windows laptop mostly because it has better resolution (1400x1050) than my desktop (1024x768) and crisper fonts; something I hope to remedy soon.
If you require true synchronisation of multiple libraries, then a little rsync is your friend.
rsync is great but if you have a windows system and are looking for a backup/sync client, you might consider SyncBack for syncronizing music libraries. I have a number of Windows XP based laptops and a linux (SuSE 9.1) server. I use SyncBack to keep the Music syncronized between them and it's easier to set up on Windows. It lets you schedule backups/syncronizations, and is really fast and easy to use. It's free,though not open source, and as best I can determine has no spyware or ads. They are working on a pay version but the free version works great. There's even a version which doesn't require installation; just copy it into a directory and start using it.
In case you are wondering, I don't have any relationship with the company or individuals that make SyncBack. It's just a good application I found useful and thought others might too.
Why would you, as SBC, be looking to put out more cash, if you just LOST cash last reporting period?
Depends on why they lost money and what sort of a deal they can get. One down quarter isn't necessarily a big deal. AT&T has a real gem of an asset in their enterprise business and another in their network which I'm sure is why SBC is interested. They've talked before about a merger. BellSouth did too a few years back. But AT&T also has a lot of debt and some rapidly sinking businesses. SBC would have to rework or get rid of this debt for the merger to happen. But if SBC can get a sweetheart deal, it might make sense.
Personally, I think the deal is probably a bad idea. As I mentioned before, AT&T's debt load is a problem. There also are competitive issues. The merger could jeapordize SBC's relationship with BellSouth which jointly owns Cingular with SBC. Plus there is the question of whether it can pass regulatory scrutiny; something that is by no means assured. I don't see any obvious way to fix AT&T's problems but I don't have all the facts either.
Don't count the Bells out just yet
on
SBC Might Buy AT&T
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...With things like the internet (skype?) hurting the traditional phone companie's revenue streams, and with the slow but steady emergence of VoIP, the big phone companies days are numbered.
Maybe but I doubt it. True, the days of POTS as a cash cow probably are numbered, though we could argue about exactly how much time the have left. But that hardly makes SBC, Verizon and the rest helpless. Someone still needs to deliver a connection to the curb. Despite increasing comptition from cable companies and wireless, the Baby Bells do have a large installed network that isn't easy to replace. Yeah, margins will get squeezed but someone will have to maintain that wire and there is money to be made there.
VOIP is still in its infancy (I say this as somone who uses Vonage daily and likes it) and needs easier installation and greater reliability before it replaces POTS to a large degree. Businesses will probably adopt it earlier but residences are going to take a while. Yes, it VOIP is the future but it's going to take a while and there's nothing preventing SBC and the rest from getting into that business.
As for wireless, SBC and Verizon are the #1 and #2 wireless providers in the US. Both are well positioned there. WiMax/WiFi is a potential threat in that it could make the last mile problem easier, but someone still has to provide the back end for that traffic and it isn't without its problems. (security, frequency crowding, availibility, speed, etc) And again, there is nothing preventing the Bells from competing here either.
So yes, SBC and the rest have their work cut out for them, but I wouldn't bet against them at this point. We're likely to see further consolidation as telecomunications becomes more and more of a commodity business but that doesn't imply that the Baby Bells are going to disappear any time soon. Change? Yes. Disappear. Doubt it.
China can always threaten to stop buying up US debt.
And do you know what the effect of that would be on China? It's a complicated subject but one of the reasons China keeps such large currency reserves is so they can protect their currency against speculation. China has something around $500 billion in US currency right now. This large reserve helps them maintain their currency's peg to the dollar. Its more complicated than this, but essentially they are taking dollars out of circulation thus increasing demand for dollars (less supply -> price increases). This makes a dollar "worth" more, relative to the Renminbi, and makes Chinas exported goods more attractive.
Without a large currency reserve, speculators would be tempted to bet on the currency and China could be forced to float their currency which would cause an instant recession, probably worldwide. Think speculators couldn't do this? George Soros became famous for making $1 billion in a single day by betting on the devaluation of the British pound and forcing the Bank of England to float their currency. In fact speculation is how the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis started. The Thai government had a speculation attack on their currency and were forced to float it, resulting in immediate devaluation and a region-wide financial crisis.
It's not that easy for China to just stop buying dollars. The media tends to paint it as a one sided deal but China is just as dependant on the US, if not more so. Without the US buying all those goods, China's economy goes in the toilet.
You lost me right here. If you RTFA, you'd notice that it's not shocking news to hear that people are living longer. And in fact, it's an opposite occurrance. The rate of longevity has slowed. So while they took into account that the general population is living longer, we're not living as long as the forecasters intended.
I did RTFA and in fact knew about the relevant statistics probably before most readers of Slashdot. What's clear is that you missed my point. The precise rate at which life expectancy is changing is irrelevant to my argument. The point is that it is changing by some rate (whatever that is) and Social Security has no built mechanism for adjusting either payouts, retirement age or funding levels without an act of Congress. There have been a few minor adjustments but they do not fix the problem. Even the most optimistic assements admit that at some day in the future Social Security will go bankrupt without changes. It is a broken and IMO badly designed system. What will fix it is a matter for debate but my point was that its current funding system is at best irresponsible and at worst vaguely resembles a pyramid scheme.
Let me be perfectly clear that I'm not against Social Security in principle. The idea of a mandatory retirement savings program has some merit, especially given American's generaly reluctance to save anything. But if we are going to have one it ought to be funded sensibly. Otherwise I'm paying taxes I'd rather see put to more beneficial uses.
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Granted SS is not an intentionally criminal enterprise, I think it's intentions are good, but it does have a strong resemblence to a pyramid scheme thanks to demographics. People are living longer which is not compensated for in the plan. To wit:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
Sure there is a belief. There is a belief that the profits are going to come from future taxpayer dollars. Problem is that people are living longer and the population growth isn't sufficient to maintain this, especially after the baby boomers retire. The only reason it is a "pay-as-you-go" system is because Congress can't help themselves and raid SS for every extra penny that comes in every year for purposes other than Social Security. That money should be invested for future retirees and used for no other purpose but it isn't.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
There is a continual growth of incoming funds from working taxpayers funding "high" returns for existing retirees (read early investors). Granted it isn't to the level (50%+ returns) one usually associates with a Ponzi scheme but the principle is basically the same. Eventually demographics will catch up and the number of retirees will be too large to be supported by the workers without changes to the program. That's exactly how pyramid schemes fail.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
If it were truly an insurance program that intended to remain solvent, it would have to adjust either the retirement age or the benefits paid. Besides, do you know how insurance companies work? They take in payments, invest that money and then pay out what they have to in claims. Whatever is left over is profit. But SS money is NOT invested (pay-as-you-go remember?) so it really does not resemble an insurance program at all.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
The amount of money that comes in from taxes is HIGHLY variable and is not at all easy to calculate. Don't know where you got that idea. The reason California found itself way overbudget these last few years is precisely because they planned to spend money and then ended up with less in tax revenue than expected. Predicting tax revenue is anything but a science. One good recession will screw up even the best models.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
You ever tried to take away benefits or salary from someone? There is a reason SS is called the third rail. A politician touches it and he dies. True, in theory benefits can be adjusted but the political reality is that taking benefits away from old people is political suicide and not likely to happen anytime soon.
I'm really pleased to hear that Evolution is moving towards becoming cross platform. If it makes its way to the Macintosh as well I might finally have an alternative to Thunderbird. I'm a huge open source advocate but I do not (indeed cannot) just use linux. I use Windows, OS X, linux (SuSE) and some other systems from time to time. If an application isn't cross platform, it's generally not much use to me and I think I'm not alone. All other things being equal (and sadly they rarely are) I'll always pick an open source app over a close source one but for me at least it has to be cross platform as well to receive serious consideration as an addition to my desktop toolkit. It's also a heck of a lot easier for me to promote open source software if I don't have to convince people to switch operating systems or work methods in the process.
I use Firefox, Thunderbird and GIMP regularly. Now and then I use OpenOffice, though I need to use MS Office still most of the time for compatibility reasons. There are a few applications I haven't been able to replace on one platform or another. I'm still stuck with Quicken on Windows/Mac. GNUcash just isn't there yet as it is still stuck on linux and doesn't have all the features I need either. I'm also stuck with Palm Desktop which is Windows only as there is no cross platform syncing capability for my Tungsten T3. Thunderbird despite being a great email application isn't good enough at syncing for addresses and it can't handle calendars, notes, memos, voice memos, pictures or anything else I need to sync.
I'm hopefuly too that someone will solve the calendar compatibility problem in a platform independant manner. I'm REALLY tired of having separate and incompatible address books for Thunderbird, Palm Desktop, Gmail, etc. Why this hasn't been an "itch" to anyone with some mad programming skilz (not me sadly), I cannot fathom.
...that stinks of "create a problem, then sell the solution".
Sounds like every consulting gig I've been involved with. Convince them they have a problem and that you, and only you, know how to fix it. Oh, and ummm, profit!
I would just switch to 802.11a which runs somewhere in the 5Ghz band. It's faster than 802.11b and works great; just a bit shorter range is the main drawback. Granted this costs money but it should eliminate the problem since almost no one uses 802.11a. You can get routers that will do both A and G.
It's strange that prices of end products haven't gone through the roof yet.
It shouldn't surprise you so much. A lot of firms have long term contracts to provide materials at a fixed price. In some cases the market is so competitive that they can't raise prices even if the firm was able to. Hence the firm you sell that copper wire to may be unable to pass on the cost increases to their customers. I've been working with some auto suppliers that are absolutely taking a bath because they can't pass on the increases in materials cost.
I recently returned to get a pair of Masters degrees five years after my Bachelors.
1) Typically, how do graduate admissions officials view work experience? Note that I haven't been working as a Computer Engineer but as a Software Engineer.
They tend to view it quite favorably. Some programs insist upon it, though I doubt that would be the case for Comp Sci. Work experience is a big plus to admission committees in my experience.
2) What are the differences between graduate studies at the Masters level in the US, Canada and the UK? I already know a bit from what is available on the websites, so I'm looking for some deeper insights.
Can't answer this one.
3) I'd like to hear from people who've done this, i.e. quit their jobs and gone back to get a higher engineering degree. What problems did you face and what advice do you have?
The biggest adjustment is getting used to not having a paycheck anymore. It's hard to adjust your standard of living. Otherwise, I found school to be much more enjoyable once I was older. I was a better student, cared more about the material, knew what questions to ask, and could more easily work with the professors.
4) People who've studied in the UK at the MSc, MPhil, MEngg level - how did you fund your education? Were you able to get things like teaching or research assistantships and how much of your costs did these cover?"
I just took out student loans to cover the whole thing. Interest rates are so low right now it's almost free money. I have some student loans as low as 1.5% interest, and in the US the interest is tax deductible up to a certain amount. My only regret is that I didn't take more money out because the cost of capital is so low. (If you don't know what cost of capital means, learn! It's one of the most valuable things to know about) If you get some sort of working stipend or grant, that is great and you should take it but I'd still recommend getting student loans. Throw the extra into an investment/savings account and whatever's left over is cheap money you can build savings upon. (Yes I realize this is borderline with regard to the terms of the loan but no one will check unless you default)
I'm surprised that using steel instead of aluminum would cut $130 off the price. Aluminum only costs about $0.83/lb. Does it cost a lot to shape or something? I'd expect the harder steel to cost more to work.
I'm an engineer specialized in manufacturing and I've done some work recently sourcing steel for stampings. Steel prices, along with other raw materials, have gone through the roof in the last year or so largely due to demand from China. (I was there recently and you cannot believe the amount of construction going on unless you see it. Absolutely amazing.) As of a month ago, I was getting quotes on steel that were generally in the range of $0.45-$0.57/lb depending on the alloy you wanted and where you needed it. (this is in North America) If you want forgings or something shaped, that will add to the cost. On a weight basis the steel can't cost more than $15-25 (and that's generous) given the amount of material in a typical case.
$130 seems like a lot just for materials savings unless they were using unusual alloys or really getting ripped off on the labor. Steel is actually pretty easy to work with, often easier than aluminum in my experience. Aluminum is so soft you often have to be careful with coolants and cutting speeds. There are structural considerations sometimes too. Aluminum requires different amounts of material for the same structural strength. But the difference isn't exactly night and day. Frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out where $130 in material savings would come from since the amount of material is so small.
would you give a nickle to a banker or broker who was that clueless?
Not intentionally but we probably all have at one point or another. You probably see it at your own company; marketing makes most companies look more competent than its employees really are most of the time. While things often work out, I know my limitations and I'm frequently astonished at how naive or unskilled some of my co-workers are. I'm sure we've all conducted financial transactions with individuals of dubious intellectual prowess.
While I agree these guys were stupid, or at leave profoundly naive, bankers are not techies either. I know a lot of bankers personally (I have a business as well as an engineering degree) and most of them are pretty smart people. They can dissect financial statements and often are excellent users of spreadsheets and/or databases. But they don't generally know how technologies, including email, work underneath, nor are they interested.
While they should not have assumed their communications were secure, I'm not surprised they made this mistake either. After all, email *seems* secure at first glance to most people. Sure the folks reading this know it's not but I've pointed out to many people I know just how insecure and potentially incriminating email is and I frequently get surprised reactions. (That is when they don't think I'm a paranoid looney.) The appearance of security fools an awful lot of people and I think these guys genuinely thought they were safe. Dumb, but understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
the greatest difficulty will be with the reading of information
Is the long anticipated write-only memory here at last? Huzzah!
Even as the dollar falls, Chinese imports become no less or no more expensive because the exchange rate has stayed the same.
Don't confuse a currency peg with the purchasing power. A currency peg does not mean that the value of imports/exports remains fixed. You are also assuming that the Dollar and Renminbi are the only two currencies out there. I'll try to explain because it's not entirely intuitive. (and I'll try to keep it simple because it isn't - hopefully I've gotten my cash flows right...)
If the US buys goods from China, capital (money) *has* to flow into China. There is now a smaller supply of capital (money) in the US and a larger money supply in China. When the money supply gets larger, the value of a unit of currency (absent government action) falls.
The next time China wants to buy (import) some goods, they have all this extra supply of dollars. Excess supply reduces the real value of their currency so they can buy less goods/services. Having a "cheap" currency makes exports cheaper but imports more expensive.
Notice that exchange rates haven't even been mentioned yet. With a floating currency, the Renminbi (China's currency) would devalue in the Foreign Exchange (FX) markets. But to keep this from happening, China does something clever. First, they do not permit the Renminbi to be traded in Foreign Exchange markets keeping the supply low. They maintain the exact exchange rate by buying/selling US Bonds (dollars but in the future) with the dollars they got earlier from selling goods.
One problem is that this can lead to speculation. (Read about George Soros and the Bank of England for details) To avoid this problem China keeps a HUGE foreign reserve (over $600 billion and rising) to keep speculators at bay, even though it is widely recognized that China is enjoying a 20-40% advantage in exports. Since China's economy is export driven, they aren't about to change that suddenly either. Yes, they will have to adjust the peg to keep inflation in check but it's going to happen gradually. I'm getting aside however.
The point is, that a currency peg does NOT keep the prices of goods between the US and China constant. The US can't keep printing dollars and selling them to China forever without inflation occuring. Likewise China can't keep selling goods to the US for increasingly more plentiful (and thus less valuable in the world market - remember there are other countries besides the US and China) dollars.
WHY, do companies and stores think that NOT showing ID when using a credit card/debit card is something that people would want?
Generally as a customer I don't. Not that I think showing ID is bad idea but I generally find the signature and to a lesser extend ID security measures to be as pointless as most of the airline "security". They're half heartedly implemented, irritating, and as implemented don't really do much to stop crime. It's appearance of security without substance. I wouldn't mind people asking for ID except that almost no one does, so what's the point? And the signature matching is a stupid since any thief with half a brain (admitedly some lack even half) will just look at the card and make at least a half-hearted effort to copy it. It's not like he has to look hard for it...
Let me be clear. I have the mistfortune of being a man with a name that is very rarely associated with the masculine gender. As irritating as that is to me, I should get asked for my ID all the time. But I don't which tells me that the the store management and credit card companies don't really percieve it as a problem. And they have the data to know whether it is or isn't. It's not like they're guessing. Furthermore, when I do get asked for ID, it's almost always at places like an airport (where I've been asked for my ID 20 times) when buying a $4 magazine, never for the $1000 printer. As a customer, I'll admit that being asked for ID is irritating and I don't like being regarded as a potential criminal but if it were a widely implemented security measure, I could deal. But since the credit card companies and most retailers don't regard it as enough of a problem (actions speak louder than words) to ask for ID consistently, I'd rather they save me the irritation and not bother at all.
It gets repeated here ad-nauseum that authentication consists of some combination of what you have, what you are and what you know. The signature is worthless as a security measure because it is simply two instances of something you have in the same item. Someone who takes my credit card also has my signature. Asking for photo ID sort of gets at what you are, though it can be forged by an ambitious criminal. But it could slow down the smaller thefts were it actually used. A pin code is actually useful IMO because it is something you know but is not used (for cost reasons mostly) for credit cards here in the US. And unlike biometric ID, it can be changed if there is a mixup.
While I'm venting, what really irritates me is when they have those swipe-it-yourself pads but still ask to see the signature! I've already mentioned that I think signature comparison is worthless as a security measure, but this practice just wastes both my time and the clerk's time. Furthermore they don't physically have the card at the right time if the credit card company tells them to hold the card. If they want to see my signature, the clerk should swipe the card him/herself and check. By having me do it, they don't save any time and they don't improve security. If they are going to ask for something they should ask for ID at that point, not a signature.
We'll see how this plays out. Either the technical superiority of TiVo will win out or the lower-cost, lower-quality options that the cable companies can offer will win out. Actually it's likely that both will win and retain some part of the market, the question is, how large a part for each respectively?
If you haven't already it sounds like you need to read The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen. The DVRs the cable companies put out don't have to be better to put TiVo out of business. They just have to be good enough, cheaper and easy to get. Being a technology leader is only valuable if three things are true. First, that you can stay a technology leader and protect that position. (through futher innovation, patents, etc) Second, that your technology leadership either lets you be the low cost provider OR that customers value your technology such that it lets you charge a premium for your services. Third, that you have economicly viable access to the right distribution channels. TiVo is arguably the technology leader in the DVR industry but I think it is failing on the maybe the second and definitely the third conditions.
Let me give you an example. Most of us criticize (rightly IMO) Microsoft for a lack of innovation. But being the leader isn't always the best business strategy. Economists call Microsoft a fast follower. They don't innovate. They don't know how to. And if they tried, they'd fail. But what they do very successfully is watch the leaders in the market and then copy their innovations while leveraging their strengths in marketing, distribution. OS/2 challeged Windows NT a few years back. Result? Windows 95. It wasn't better than OS/2 technologically but it was good enough and Microsoft controled the distribution channels. (plus IBM shot themselves in the foot repeatedly) They can learn from the innovations and mistakes of the innovators and come out with a good enough product that most customers will buy. Sure, it's not a glamorous strategy but being a fast follower can be very, very effective.
The downside of being a fast follower? You might not be able to catch the market leader if you aren't quick enough. Microsoft hasn't been able to catch Intuit with their Microsoft Money product despite years of trying. They got caught on the wrong side of an installed base. Being a successful fast follower requires lots of resources and an acute ear for what the market is telling you. But it also means that if there is a fundamental shift in the market or if you misread the market, you're screwed. Microsoft may have be screwed because Open Source could be one of those tectonic shifts ("disruptive technologies" in my Christensen's terminologies) that fundamentally alters the market place such that their own organizational structure no longer permits them to compete effectively. Whether this is actually the case remains the be seen.
The other problem with being a fast follower is that if you are too good, you end up a monopoly with no on to copy from. As a result a successful fast follower either stagnates or has to move into other industries to grow. Microsoft is in this position right now. Their core OS and Office products are stagnant monopolies. Very profitable but unlikely to provide massive growth. So Microsoft is having to branch out into other lines of business. Dell is doing somewhat the same thing. They're so successful in selling PC's they are having to branch into printers, PDAs and other technologies to continue to grow.
Actually this is why I personally stopped buying Lexmark. Prior to this, I had three Lexmark printers. When it came time to replace, I went with an HP. Oh, I also picked HP because they have very good Linux support and Lexmark's Linux support sucks or is non-existent.
Inkjet or Laser? Reason I ask is that I have two Lexmark laser Printers (a 4039-10R and a Optra T610) sitting in the room with me and they are fantastic. I've had the 4039 for a decade. Built like tanks, great driver support (linux, windows, OS X and even OS/2 in the past - can even use HP drivers in a pinch), print over 12,000 pages per toner cartrige (works out to less than $0.02 per page in ink versus $0.08-0.15 for an inkjet) and really easy to maintain. I can say first hand that your comment about linux driver support isn't true for Lexmark laser printers.
I haven't used Lexmark's inkjets but if they're anything like the piece-of-crap HP inkjets I've used I'm not surprised you had problems. I have an HP d135 multifunction. Got it about 2.5 years ago and it's broken 3 times. I got one of those ripoff service agreements with Best Buy and I'm glad I did. I guarantee HP or Best Buy has lost money on that unit. I don't print enough in color for them to make their money back on the ink. If I need a lot of color prints I just go to Kinko's. It's cheaper, faster and less aggrivation.
I have an Epson inkjet too. Still has some of the problems common to all inkjets and isn't exactly a tank but it's so far been a better purchase than my HP. Print heads stay aligned better (less wasted ink), has better color accuracy, doesn't try to feed 5 sheets of paper at once and so far has been more reliable.
Point is, that I think most people would be better served with a laser printer these days. They're faster, more reliable, better constructed, have better print quality, cheaper to operate, and you don't have to change toner every third page you print or worry about print head alignment, and generally all around better in every way I can think of except up front cost. I guess they're a bit noisier but not enough to matter. Unless you do almost no printing, a laser is totally the way to go.
Get some of these from CompUSA. They help cooling a little and help with vibrations a lot. Of course you need free 5 inch drive bays. If you have drive rails (like me) the hole spacing may be non-standard and require some drilling, but that's easy enough if you take your time and measure carefully.
I put all my efforts and support in Suse about 2 years ago and all my eggs in the Linux basket (in general) about 4 years ago.
I did the same thing. There's been a few warts (configuring Samba, some graphics issues which weren't well documented) but it's generally been good. SuSE is pretty easy to work with, reasonably polished. They could do a better job keeping up with some of the big name open source software like Mozilla through the official update channels (they're usually a few versions behind) but since I can install that myself, no biggie. SuSE has been good to me. Easy to install and stable as heck.
Only serious problem I'm running into is a with an Adaptec 1210SA controller that Suse doesn't like. (I understand it's more of an Adaptec shitty-driver problem than a Suse problem - anyone have any recommendations on a 32 bit SATA raid controller that actaully works?) I have a workaround though so it's not an emergency...
End result? Nearly silent. Quieter than my thinkpad laptop which doesn't make much noise. I still want a quieter power supply fan though I'm reasonably satisfied with the one I have. Basically anything rated at over 20db is too loud by my standards. Yes, many people will tell you you can hear it and that's true if you are 10+ feet away or have damaged hearing from too much loud music.
Obviously if you want a machine with super high performance, you may need better cooling that I do and better cooling usually equals more noise. My machine is a linux file/print server so I'm not looking for maximal performance, though I do have a SCSI drive system in it. Make sure you keep the air pathways clear if you use the fans I recommend because they don't blow a lot of air. Don't block any ventilation though you can use air filters if you feel the need. Every so often get a can of compressed air and blow out any dust in the system which will help with the cooling.
Vehicle crashes are way more complex than anything we could currently think of.
Nonsense. Vehicle crashes are actually fairly straightforward to model so long as you have sufficient data. And trust me, the data exists. I've worked for several years as a simulation engineer for a major Tier-One auto supplier.
Every part on a car would need to be tested for strength, width, height, depth, shape, mass, the connections holding it to another part, and that bolt tested...
Guess what? Automotive firms do this. All of it. Finite element analysis, Dynamic simulations, virtual crash testing, genetic product shaping, and a host of other computer simulation is applied to products as well as the processes used to make them these days. Not only did we simulate parts like tubing but we also simulated the hydro-forming and stamping processes used to make the parts. It's a LOT cheaper than real world prototyping and destructive testing.
Sure there is a lot of number crunching but in case you hadn't noticed, computing power is cheap. The physics and materials science involved is well understood and there are easy ways to create 3D models of entire vehicles. The models don't run in real time but that's not necessary to get useful data.
As a juror I would never trust a computer simulation.
Depends on the simulation. Remember this phrase, "all models are wrong, some models are useful". Every non-trivial financial, physical, chemical, process and any other sort of model any engineer creates is wrong. The only real question is by how much. A simulation model could provide useful insight. Heck lawyers are creating models of their interpretation of events in the court room. Would I convict someone of a crime simply on a computer model alone? Hell no! (and remember I make simulation models all the time) A simulation's results are highly dependant on the data fed into it so no they cannot tell the whole story.
All a simulation can do is tell you whether a certain set of conditions is likely to produce a particular result. Interpreted correctly, a simulation will never give an answer, merely a probability of a result given the conditions and assumptions. Engineers don't get paid to make simulations. That's actually rather easy (most of the time) believe it or not. We get paid to create useful models and interpret the results. To give them meaning and context. Could a simulation be useful in a trial? By itself, no. But as a part of the evidence? Sure. One just has to be VERY careful about understanding the assumptions and data that went into it. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that..
They already do this through a tax on gasoline/diesel. Drive more and you'll use more gasoline. It even accounts for people with more inefficient vehicles. It's simple and easy to enforce. What would be the point of tracking mileage via GPS other than to invade privacy?
I am selling my T3 Tungsten Palm right now, and it's because I just don't use it. I mean, I *want* to use it, or, more accurately, I want to *need* to use it, but it's just not something I keep with me constantly.
Interestingly I had just the opposite experience with mine. Being a bit of a road warrior might have something to do with it. I had a old palm but it was too awkward to use. (no bluetooth, no digital ink notes, no voice recorder, awkward syncing, etc...) The T3 was the first PDA with enough features which was easy enough to sync with my phone and computer. Who wants to carry around a bunch of wires after all? I use it to record phone conversations on speakerphone, joting down small notes with the digitial ink, to-do list, address book, and calendar mostly. When I'm on the road, it provides convenient email access via bluetooth/GPRS. The T3 is good enough I actually use it which I can't say for any paper based system or previous PDA.
I actually revel in not keeping it with me constantly. Instead of an all in one device like a Treo (which is great, not criticizing) I can carry just a cell phone most of the time. But thanks to bluetooth, when I carry my PDA the two devices act beautifully in concert. I don't have to keep every phone number in my phone, I just touch dial with my PDA and it makes a bluetooth connection automatically and dials. Same with internet access. If Palm wants to save the current PDA form factor they should be pushing Bluetooth actively, but no one seems to care. (and no WiFi is NOT a substitute for bluetooth anymore than ethernet is a subsitute for firewire)
Now not all is perfect. I've complained loudly before that the software on the computer side of things is pathetic. I have 4 incompatible calendars, am basically stuck with Palm Desktop for syncing anything except adress books & maybe calendars. And heaven forbid the battery runs dry (all too easy with a T3) The software though is the most annoying problem and in my opinion why most people quit eventually. It's just not easy enough. The one button cradle was innovative 10 years ago but it needs to be easier still and Palm hasn't done a damn thing since. I should be able to import my contact info into ANY address book and sync with ANY calendar I choose seemlessly. Applications should either be stored in flash memory or reinstalled with the next sync should they disappear. Syncing isn't just supposed to be about backing up.
you could download cygwin and you can get all the same functionality
Cygwin is great too but it fails the mom test. Plus installing Cygwin just for rsync is like using a sledgehammer to drive a thumb tack. Great tool but serious overkill... Most of us here can deal with it I think, but SyncBack is a LOT easier if you have a Windows system.
I even have Cygwin on my machine but I don't use it much since I have a linux system right behind me. I use my Windows laptop mostly because it has better resolution (1400x1050) than my desktop (1024x768) and crisper fonts; something I hope to remedy soon.
If you require true synchronisation of multiple libraries, then a little rsync is your friend.
rsync is great but if you have a windows system and are looking for a backup/sync client, you might consider SyncBack for syncronizing music libraries. I have a number of Windows XP based laptops and a linux (SuSE 9.1) server. I use SyncBack to keep the Music syncronized between them and it's easier to set up on Windows. It lets you schedule backups/syncronizations, and is really fast and easy to use. It's free,though not open source, and as best I can determine has no spyware or ads. They are working on a pay version but the free version works great. There's even a version which doesn't require installation; just copy it into a directory and start using it.
In case you are wondering, I don't have any relationship with the company or individuals that make SyncBack. It's just a good application I found useful and thought others might too.
Why would you, as SBC, be looking to put out more cash, if you just LOST cash last reporting period?
Depends on why they lost money and what sort of a deal they can get. One down quarter isn't necessarily a big deal. AT&T has a real gem of an asset in their enterprise business and another in their network which I'm sure is why SBC is interested. They've talked before about a merger. BellSouth did too a few years back. But AT&T also has a lot of debt and some rapidly sinking businesses. SBC would have to rework or get rid of this debt for the merger to happen. But if SBC can get a sweetheart deal, it might make sense.
Personally, I think the deal is probably a bad idea. As I mentioned before, AT&T's debt load is a problem. There also are competitive issues. The merger could jeapordize SBC's relationship with BellSouth which jointly owns Cingular with SBC. Plus there is the question of whether it can pass regulatory scrutiny; something that is by no means assured. I don't see any obvious way to fix AT&T's problems but I don't have all the facts either.
...With things like the internet (skype?) hurting the traditional phone companie's revenue streams, and with the slow but steady emergence of VoIP, the big phone companies days are numbered.
Maybe but I doubt it. True, the days of POTS as a cash cow probably are numbered, though we could argue about exactly how much time the have left. But that hardly makes SBC, Verizon and the rest helpless. Someone still needs to deliver a connection to the curb. Despite increasing comptition from cable companies and wireless, the Baby Bells do have a large installed network that isn't easy to replace. Yeah, margins will get squeezed but someone will have to maintain that wire and there is money to be made there.
VOIP is still in its infancy (I say this as somone who uses Vonage daily and likes it) and needs easier installation and greater reliability before it replaces POTS to a large degree. Businesses will probably adopt it earlier but residences are going to take a while. Yes, it VOIP is the future but it's going to take a while and there's nothing preventing SBC and the rest from getting into that business.
As for wireless, SBC and Verizon are the #1 and #2 wireless providers in the US. Both are well positioned there. WiMax/WiFi is a potential threat in that it could make the last mile problem easier, but someone still has to provide the back end for that traffic and it isn't without its problems. (security, frequency crowding, availibility, speed, etc) And again, there is nothing preventing the Bells from competing here either.
So yes, SBC and the rest have their work cut out for them, but I wouldn't bet against them at this point. We're likely to see further consolidation as telecomunications becomes more and more of a commodity business but that doesn't imply that the Baby Bells are going to disappear any time soon. Change? Yes. Disappear. Doubt it.
China can always threaten to stop buying up US debt.
And do you know what the effect of that would be on China? It's a complicated subject but one of the reasons China keeps such large currency reserves is so they can protect their currency against speculation. China has something around $500 billion in US currency right now. This large reserve helps them maintain their currency's peg to the dollar. Its more complicated than this, but essentially they are taking dollars out of circulation thus increasing demand for dollars (less supply -> price increases). This makes a dollar "worth" more, relative to the Renminbi, and makes Chinas exported goods more attractive.
Without a large currency reserve, speculators would be tempted to bet on the currency and China could be forced to float their currency which would cause an instant recession, probably worldwide. Think speculators couldn't do this? George Soros became famous for making $1 billion in a single day by betting on the devaluation of the British pound and forcing the Bank of England to float their currency. In fact speculation is how the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis started. The Thai government had a speculation attack on their currency and were forced to float it, resulting in immediate devaluation and a region-wide financial crisis.
It's not that easy for China to just stop buying dollars. The media tends to paint it as a one sided deal but China is just as dependant on the US, if not more so. Without the US buying all those goods, China's economy goes in the toilet.
You lost me right here. If you RTFA, you'd notice that it's not shocking news to hear that people are living longer. And in fact, it's an opposite occurrance. The rate of longevity has slowed. So while they took into account that the general population is living longer, we're not living as long as the forecasters intended.
I did RTFA and in fact knew about the relevant statistics probably before most readers of Slashdot. What's clear is that you missed my point. The precise rate at which life expectancy is changing is irrelevant to my argument. The point is that it is changing by some rate (whatever that is) and Social Security has no built mechanism for adjusting either payouts, retirement age or funding levels without an act of Congress. There have been a few minor adjustments but they do not fix the problem. Even the most optimistic assements admit that at some day in the future Social Security will go bankrupt without changes. It is a broken and IMO badly designed system. What will fix it is a matter for debate but my point was that its current funding system is at best irresponsible and at worst vaguely resembles a pyramid scheme.
Let me be perfectly clear that I'm not against Social Security in principle. The idea of a mandatory retirement savings program has some merit, especially given American's generaly reluctance to save anything. But if we are going to have one it ought to be funded sensibly. Otherwise I'm paying taxes I'd rather see put to more beneficial uses.
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Granted SS is not an intentionally criminal enterprise, I think it's intentions are good, but it does have a strong resemblence to a pyramid scheme thanks to demographics. People are living longer which is not compensated for in the plan. To wit:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
Sure there is a belief. There is a belief that the profits are going to come from future taxpayer dollars. Problem is that people are living longer and the population growth isn't sufficient to maintain this, especially after the baby boomers retire. The only reason it is a "pay-as-you-go" system is because Congress can't help themselves and raid SS for every extra penny that comes in every year for purposes other than Social Security. That money should be invested for future retirees and used for no other purpose but it isn't.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
There is a continual growth of incoming funds from working taxpayers funding "high" returns for existing retirees (read early investors). Granted it isn't to the level (50%+ returns) one usually associates with a Ponzi scheme but the principle is basically the same. Eventually demographics will catch up and the number of retirees will be too large to be supported by the workers without changes to the program. That's exactly how pyramid schemes fail.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
If it were truly an insurance program that intended to remain solvent, it would have to adjust either the retirement age or the benefits paid. Besides, do you know how insurance companies work? They take in payments, invest that money and then pay out what they have to in claims. Whatever is left over is profit. But SS money is NOT invested (pay-as-you-go remember?) so it really does not resemble an insurance program at all.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
The amount of money that comes in from taxes is HIGHLY variable and is not at all easy to calculate. Don't know where you got that idea. The reason California found itself way overbudget these last few years is precisely because they planned to spend money and then ended up with less in tax revenue than expected. Predicting tax revenue is anything but a science. One good recession will screw up even the best models.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
You ever tried to take away benefits or salary from someone? There is a reason SS is called the third rail. A politician touches it and he dies. True, in theory benefits can be adjusted but the political reality is that taking benefits away from old people is political suicide and not likely to happen anytime soon.
I'm really pleased to hear that Evolution is moving towards becoming cross platform. If it makes its way to the Macintosh as well I might finally have an alternative to Thunderbird. I'm a huge open source advocate but I do not (indeed cannot) just use linux. I use Windows, OS X, linux (SuSE) and some other systems from time to time. If an application isn't cross platform, it's generally not much use to me and I think I'm not alone. All other things being equal (and sadly they rarely are) I'll always pick an open source app over a close source one but for me at least it has to be cross platform as well to receive serious consideration as an addition to my desktop toolkit. It's also a heck of a lot easier for me to promote open source software if I don't have to convince people to switch operating systems or work methods in the process.
I use Firefox, Thunderbird and GIMP regularly. Now and then I use OpenOffice, though I need to use MS Office still most of the time for compatibility reasons. There are a few applications I haven't been able to replace on one platform or another. I'm still stuck with Quicken on Windows/Mac. GNUcash just isn't there yet as it is still stuck on linux and doesn't have all the features I need either. I'm also stuck with Palm Desktop which is Windows only as there is no cross platform syncing capability for my Tungsten T3. Thunderbird despite being a great email application isn't good enough at syncing for addresses and it can't handle calendars, notes, memos, voice memos, pictures or anything else I need to sync.
I'm hopefuly too that someone will solve the calendar compatibility problem in a platform independant manner. I'm REALLY tired of having separate and incompatible address books for Thunderbird, Palm Desktop, Gmail, etc. Why this hasn't been an "itch" to anyone with some mad programming skilz (not me sadly), I cannot fathom.
...that stinks of "create a problem, then sell the solution".
Sounds like every consulting gig I've been involved with. Convince them they have a problem and that you, and only you, know how to fix it. Oh, and ummm, profit!
I would just switch to 802.11a which runs somewhere in the 5Ghz band. It's faster than 802.11b and works great; just a bit shorter range is the main drawback. Granted this costs money but it should eliminate the problem since almost no one uses 802.11a. You can get routers that will do both A and G.
It's strange that prices of end products haven't gone through the roof yet.
It shouldn't surprise you so much. A lot of firms have long term contracts to provide materials at a fixed price. In some cases the market is so competitive that they can't raise prices even if the firm was able to. Hence the firm you sell that copper wire to may be unable to pass on the cost increases to their customers. I've been working with some auto suppliers that are absolutely taking a bath because they can't pass on the increases in materials cost.
I recently returned to get a pair of Masters degrees five years after my Bachelors.
1) Typically, how do graduate admissions officials view work experience? Note that I haven't been working as a Computer Engineer but as a Software Engineer.
They tend to view it quite favorably. Some programs insist upon it, though I doubt that would be the case for Comp Sci. Work experience is a big plus to admission committees in my experience.
2) What are the differences between graduate studies at the Masters level in the US, Canada and the UK? I already know a bit from what is available on the websites, so I'm looking for some deeper insights.
Can't answer this one.
3) I'd like to hear from people who've done this, i.e. quit their jobs and gone back to get a higher engineering degree. What problems did you face and what advice do you have?
The biggest adjustment is getting used to not having a paycheck anymore. It's hard to adjust your standard of living. Otherwise, I found school to be much more enjoyable once I was older. I was a better student, cared more about the material, knew what questions to ask, and could more easily work with the professors.
4) People who've studied in the UK at the MSc, MPhil, MEngg level - how did you fund your education? Were you able to get things like teaching or research assistantships and how much of your costs did these cover?"
I just took out student loans to cover the whole thing. Interest rates are so low right now it's almost free money. I have some student loans as low as 1.5% interest, and in the US the interest is tax deductible up to a certain amount. My only regret is that I didn't take more money out because the cost of capital is so low. (If you don't know what cost of capital means, learn! It's one of the most valuable things to know about) If you get some sort of working stipend or grant, that is great and you should take it but I'd still recommend getting student loans. Throw the extra into an investment/savings account and whatever's left over is cheap money you can build savings upon. (Yes I realize this is borderline with regard to the terms of the loan but no one will check unless you default)
I'm surprised that using steel instead of aluminum would cut $130 off the price. Aluminum only costs about $0.83/lb. Does it cost a lot to shape or something? I'd expect the harder steel to cost more to work.
I'm an engineer specialized in manufacturing and I've done some work recently sourcing steel for stampings. Steel prices, along with other raw materials, have gone through the roof in the last year or so largely due to demand from China. (I was there recently and you cannot believe the amount of construction going on unless you see it. Absolutely amazing.) As of a month ago, I was getting quotes on steel that were generally in the range of $0.45-$0.57/lb depending on the alloy you wanted and where you needed it. (this is in North America) If you want forgings or something shaped, that will add to the cost. On a weight basis the steel can't cost more than $15-25 (and that's generous) given the amount of material in a typical case.
$130 seems like a lot just for materials savings unless they were using unusual alloys or really getting ripped off on the labor. Steel is actually pretty easy to work with, often easier than aluminum in my experience. Aluminum is so soft you often have to be careful with coolants and cutting speeds. There are structural considerations sometimes too. Aluminum requires different amounts of material for the same structural strength. But the difference isn't exactly night and day. Frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out where $130 in material savings would come from since the amount of material is so small.
would you give a nickle to a banker or broker who was that clueless?
Not intentionally but we probably all have at one point or another. You probably see it at your own company; marketing makes most companies look more competent than its employees really are most of the time. While things often work out, I know my limitations and I'm frequently astonished at how naive or unskilled some of my co-workers are. I'm sure we've all conducted financial transactions with individuals of dubious intellectual prowess.
While I agree these guys were stupid, or at leave profoundly naive, bankers are not techies either. I know a lot of bankers personally (I have a business as well as an engineering degree) and most of them are pretty smart people. They can dissect financial statements and often are excellent users of spreadsheets and/or databases. But they don't generally know how technologies, including email, work underneath, nor are they interested.
While they should not have assumed their communications were secure, I'm not surprised they made this mistake either. After all, email *seems* secure at first glance to most people. Sure the folks reading this know it's not but I've pointed out to many people I know just how insecure and potentially incriminating email is and I frequently get surprised reactions. (That is when they don't think I'm a paranoid looney.) The appearance of security fools an awful lot of people and I think these guys genuinely thought they were safe. Dumb, but understandable.