If you are going to be training senior management, focus 100% on the ERM software and how they can use it for their business needs. They could likely care less about the underlying plumbing and it would take much more time and effort than they'd be willing to undergo, plus it's not in their interests to do that. That's why they hire smart IT guys, right?
No, they could not. Remember that they COULD NOT care less about the technical details. (Most of them anyway.) They bought the system for a reason. Focus on that reason. It had nothing to do with open source or software architecture. You will not be preaching to the choir on your favorite software topics.
I wasn't chest thumping. I was pointing out that how much money you need for materials and other non-labor costs depends greatly on what kind of products you are developing.
Marketing people are skilled at making a case for why and how people should spend their money. That said, $250K for marketing materials and expenses is not much even for a small company.
If you're in the software business, low budgets for engineering expenses are pretty normal, but $17K for the company is paltry. What if you need to expense simulator time, upgrade computers, compilers, replace monitors, storage, that kind of thing. Heck, even for one person, $17K doesn't go far. My company makes hardware, software and firmware. $17K wouldn't get us halfway through one tiny project. I'm developing a board right now that will cost $6K in materials alone, not counting the material processing charge to have it assembled.
If there are things that you need that aren't in the budget, get them in the budget. Management only knows about the expenses you tell them about.
After having two TVs fail in three years at ages of 2.5 years and 5 years (I won't mention the brands but they rhyme with Visio and Sharp I ponied up for the extended warranty on the latest replacement. The way they make consumer electronics these days (low reliability and almost unrepairable), I think the math may be likely to work out in my favor.
We're talking very marginally more expensive food if we ban a class of insecticides, as opposed to much more expensive food if crops fail because they were not pollinated. Soybeans, despite what you're read, will not be much affected by bee loss. They self-pollinate.
Try telling that to Swedish women. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=31
Total fertility rate = 1.67 children per woman.
Now you understand why the paid leave benefit for having a child is so extreme in Sweden.
The laser cooling is to get enough energy out of the system to get it in the (ridiculously named) "time crystal" state, and to extract excess energy that is inevitably going to enter the system because you're keeping stuff below ambient temperature. But there's a rub there. The photons are continuously interacting with the system. If the system can't be maintained while turning the lasers off, it's not a stable system and any claims that it is some kind of analog of a crystal, which is VERY stable, are impossible to demonstrate.
No I wouldn't. Rural electrification is not the same as giving a handful of people blazing fast ethernet service, nor is it an efficient way to improve their internet service to a level similar to what's available in cities.
Surely humans are born with a defect in that gene sometimes. Are they dumb?
Probably. Humans are born dumb for a whole bunch of reasons that will someday be easily fixed by science.:(
I agree it's probable. But until you've done the research you don't *know* and it's important to therefore refrain from making too many assumptions that are not backed up by solid evidence.
No doubt there is a reason why moths have dust on their wings. Your claim that knowing why might be useful in aircraft bigger than moths is wild, baseless speculation. You should be embarrassed to make such claims. But it might eventually be applied on insect-sized drones, or engineered insects that function as drones.
You apparently didn't get my point. The $56000 hammer is useful. It's a hammer, for Christ's sake. But paying $56000 for it is not a prudent way to spend money.
Likewise, it may be true that all science is valuable (although I've never seen any argument for this position that didn't beg the question). If it is true, it does not follow that all science is equally valuable. Consequently if you have limited resources, directing the money you have for science to avenues of research that seem likely to be related to near-term application and in particular on things that might noticeably improve life is prudent.
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
When you have a $56,000 hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yeah, but would you hit an ordinary nail with a $56000 hammer, or would you be looking for MIL-SPEC nails?
Yeah, because all those guys are doing a great job.
It might actually be easier to do a good job if the politicians would butt out.
And on the bright side, maybe I'll get Alzheimer's disease in a few years and have that last year of high school blotted out from my memory. That'd be nice. It's a good reason to look forward to getting older. Yeah...
OK. Then the legislature can butt out too. It's fine for them to set high-level standards. Micro-managing what kids read in school is a decision for somebody much closer to the process.
The standard argument against public transportation always forgets that the capability scales up easily and provides a lower cost ultimately. Most of the first objections against public transportation take the full cost of the service and instead of amortizing it over multiple years and a larger populace served says "why only 4000 people will ride the bus! Instead of spending 80 million on 4 thousand people, we could just give each of them 20 thousand to buy their own car and we'd be better off!! We don't need bus service!". But giving those people cars won't solve anything when another 30 thousand people want to use the bus later. But building the bus system with available excess capacity will help out in the longer term
.
It's the same way with building out and deploying this high speed network access. The cost is amortized over multiple years. Why is it that when the gov't pays for it directly, people get riled up but when the government sneaks it out as a subsidy or a give-away of public right of way access to monopolies provided by private corporations, no one realizes the actual cost of what is being given away?
TFA states a cost to users of $35 / month, or $420/year/subscriber. If there are 11,000 subscribers, which would mean every household in the served area subscribing, that's $4.62M per year in revenue. It will take 20 years to amortize the cost from ratepayers.
when you consider the possibility of future expansion, consider this is rural Vermont we're talking about. Population expansion is slow in rural Vermont.
Next question: who gets that money? This isn't a direct subsidy to Vermont homeowners. It's a subsidy to the company that will provide the service for a fee.
Didn't you get the memo? Everything not fitting into the generally accepted definition of "normal" must be adjusted. Just wait 10 years and we'll have pills that make you smarter and maybe also pills that make you dumber but happier.
It's kinda like a mix between Harrison Bergeron and Brave New World...
... and the ones your mother gives you don't do anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Is "Unknown Lamer" RM by any chance?
interesting and informative, but unfortunately I have no mod points today.
Man, I wouldn't be able to refer to components by their part numbers.
If you are going to be training senior management, focus 100% on the ERM software and how they can use it for their business needs. They could likely care less about the underlying plumbing and it would take much more time and effort than they'd be willing to undergo, plus it's not in their interests to do that. That's why they hire smart IT guys, right?
No, they could not. Remember that they COULD NOT care less about the technical details. (Most of them anyway.) They bought the system for a reason. Focus on that reason. It had nothing to do with open source or software architecture. You will not be preaching to the choir on your favorite software topics.
I wasn't chest thumping. I was pointing out that how much money you need for materials and other non-labor costs depends greatly on what kind of products you are developing.
Marketing people are skilled at making a case for why and how people should spend their money. That said, $250K for marketing materials and expenses is not much even for a small company.
If you're in the software business, low budgets for engineering expenses are pretty normal, but $17K for the company is paltry. What if you need to expense simulator time, upgrade computers, compilers, replace monitors, storage, that kind of thing. Heck, even for one person, $17K doesn't go far. My company makes hardware, software and firmware. $17K wouldn't get us halfway through one tiny project. I'm developing a board right now that will cost $6K in materials alone, not counting the material processing charge to have it assembled.
If there are things that you need that aren't in the budget, get them in the budget. Management only knows about the expenses you tell them about.
After having two TVs fail in three years at ages of 2.5 years and 5 years (I won't mention the brands but they rhyme with Visio and Sharp I ponied up for the extended warranty on the latest replacement. The way they make consumer electronics these days (low reliability and almost unrepairable), I think the math may be likely to work out in my favor.
We're talking very marginally more expensive food if we ban a class of insecticides, as opposed to much more expensive food if crops fail because they were not pollinated. Soybeans, despite what you're read, will not be much affected by bee loss. They self-pollinate.
Top of the heap: Niger @ 7.03. It's going to get crowded over there.
Try telling that to Swedish women. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=31 Total fertility rate = 1.67 children per woman. Now you understand why the paid leave benefit for having a child is so extreme in Sweden.
You could have responded without turning this into race rant yourself.
It's a trademark violation with regard to Mozilla. With regard to the people they get to use it/download it, it's fraud.
Isn't that colloquially called resonance?
The laser cooling is to get enough energy out of the system to get it in the (ridiculously named) "time crystal" state, and to extract excess energy that is inevitably going to enter the system because you're keeping stuff below ambient temperature. But there's a rub there. The photons are continuously interacting with the system. If the system can't be maintained while turning the lasers off, it's not a stable system and any claims that it is some kind of analog of a crystal, which is VERY stable, are impossible to demonstrate.
How are they getting away with this in Great Britain?
1. That doesn't make it a good idea.
2. Down to the level of what genre of fiction kids are supposed to read?
if so, Wow.
No I wouldn't. Rural electrification is not the same as giving a handful of people blazing fast ethernet service, nor is it an efficient way to improve their internet service to a level similar to what's available in cities.
Surely humans are born with a defect in that gene sometimes. Are they dumb?
Probably. Humans are born dumb for a whole bunch of reasons that will someday be easily fixed by science. :(
I agree it's probable. But until you've done the research you don't *know* and it's important to therefore refrain from making too many assumptions that are not backed up by solid evidence.
No doubt there is a reason why moths have dust on their wings. Your claim that knowing why might be useful in aircraft bigger than moths is wild, baseless speculation. You should be embarrassed to make such claims. But it might eventually be applied on insect-sized drones, or engineered insects that function as drones.
You apparently didn't get my point. The $56000 hammer is useful. It's a hammer, for Christ's sake. But paying $56000 for it is not a prudent way to spend money.
Likewise, it may be true that all science is valuable (although I've never seen any argument for this position that didn't beg the question). If it is true, it does not follow that all science is equally valuable. Consequently if you have limited resources, directing the money you have for science to avenues of research that seem likely to be related to near-term application and in particular on things that might noticeably improve life is prudent.
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
When you have a $56,000 hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yeah, but would you hit an ordinary nail with a $56000 hammer, or would you be looking for MIL-SPEC nails?
Yeah, because all those guys are doing a great job.
It might actually be easier to do a good job if the politicians would butt out.
And on the bright side, maybe I'll get Alzheimer's disease in a few years and have that last year of high school blotted out from my memory. That'd be nice. It's a good reason to look forward to getting older. Yeah...
You'll never know what you're missing.
Hes a West Virginia state legislator
OK. Then the legislature can butt out too. It's fine for them to set high-level standards. Micro-managing what kids read in school is a decision for somebody much closer to the process.
The standard argument against public transportation always forgets that the capability scales up easily and provides a lower cost ultimately. Most of the first objections against public transportation take the full cost of the service and instead of amortizing it over multiple years and a larger populace served says "why only 4000 people will ride the bus! Instead of spending 80 million on 4 thousand people, we could just give each of them 20 thousand to buy their own car and we'd be better off!! We don't need bus service!". But giving those people cars won't solve anything when another 30 thousand people want to use the bus later. But building the bus system with available excess capacity will help out in the longer term . It's the same way with building out and deploying this high speed network access. The cost is amortized over multiple years. Why is it that when the gov't pays for it directly, people get riled up but when the government sneaks it out as a subsidy or a give-away of public right of way access to monopolies provided by private corporations, no one realizes the actual cost of what is being given away?
TFA states a cost to users of $35 / month, or $420/year/subscriber. If there are 11,000 subscribers, which would mean every household in the served area subscribing, that's $4.62M per year in revenue. It will take 20 years to amortize the cost from ratepayers.
when you consider the possibility of future expansion, consider this is rural Vermont we're talking about. Population expansion is slow in rural Vermont.
Next question: who gets that money? This isn't a direct subsidy to Vermont homeowners. It's a subsidy to the company that will provide the service for a fee.
Didn't you get the memo? Everything not fitting into the generally accepted definition of "normal" must be adjusted. Just wait 10 years and we'll have pills that make you smarter and maybe also pills that make you dumber but happier.
It's kinda like a mix between Harrison Bergeron and Brave New World...
... and the ones your mother gives you don't do anything at all.