Using the Alaskan crab fishing as an example is laughable at best... The only reason these guys are able to pull off the stupid things they do is because OSHA has not decided to put an end to it...
Meaning, no job is just accepted to be risky by nature, because there really is no reason for it. As OSHA has shown time and time again, safety is always built on the procedures put in place that you follow every-time. It is these procedures that keep people safe. It is only when people get lazy, and stop following the procedures that they get hurt...
Being an engineer myself, I would say that this looks like a serious design flaw to me... Meaning, if a little rock could ruin the work of thousands of people, hundreds of millions of dollars in project funding, and years of work, I am left scratching my head of why this landing strategy was a good idea?? I mean, as the Viking missions showed, there are more than one way to land a craft on a planet...
In short, scientists study, but all engineers are very comfortable with the idea of managed risk. It is part of nearly every design that is built. Yes, mistakes do occur from time to time, but I continue to see on every mission they do people jumping up and down whenever their craft successfully lands. The first couple of times they do this it is understandable, but after a couple of times you really have to start wondering if they are not designing their systems by looking at all the things that could go wrong, but rather just with the number of things they need to get it to get right...
All I am saying is I am having a hard time seeing why it is so much harder than it was in the 1970's when they landed the Viking missions, and it was the first time they ever touched down on the planet. Also, did I mention that both missions were successful...
I am not saying the job is easy, but many jobs are not. With the amount of money at stake on each mission, however, failures must to be rare, and not part of doing business. The groups in the 1960's understood this, and it is not because they had more money. It is because they accepted accountability...
I am pretty sure that OSHA would completely disagree with you...
Safety is built on putting together good procedures that you follow every time. It is only when you get careless and remove these procedures that people get hurt... Countless industrial and aircraft accidents back this up...
This is also the reason why flying is safer than it used to be, I might add... Meaning, checklists and safety procedures is what makes things reliable and safe to use...
Exactly... And they also landed 2 Viking crafts in 1976 without 1/10th the tools or even computers for that matter that we have now... And both missions were successful. They also put men on the moon without those tools or computers as well in under a decade where we are now proposing to do it in double the time just to recreate what they did in the 1960's.... Were these guys just luckier?? No... The difference was that these guys put aside the "hard and risky" non-accountability crap and got the job done...
The argument of 1000's of things that could go wrong are obvious as they are not the only ones who deal with predictable failure rates. All engineers (including me) do... Also since hundreds of millions of us tax payers dollars are at stake on every missions, I dont think it is unreasonable to hold people accountable for obvious failures....
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of hearing the "hard and risky" and "needle in a haystack" type phrases??
The first couple of times you do something is it hard and risky... After that, it is kind of part of the job description. Meaning, I am getting a little tired of them trying to use this excuse to cover their butts in case something goes unexpectedly wrong. It is a job, and they get paid quite well for doing it, I might add. I also understand that they are quite smart, but I am sure there is a huge line of smart people who would love to replace them.
In short, NASA and JPL needs to stop hiding behind corporate committees using the "Hard and Risky".. and the "Needle in a Haystack" type phrases and accept the responsibility of the job description. When they succeed, we praise them, but when they fail they need to know that there are consequences for messing up. Meaning it actually is someone's fault, and they will be fired when a mistake is made... Maybe by doing so we can avoid the simple metric to english conversion issues of the past...
You certainly sound like a wonderful admin, and I can appreciate that...
As far as logs, we traditionally have a series of items, such as hd data, temp data, etc that we automate with an srsync snapshot nightly. From there, we use a custom app we wrote to parse out key word data or repeatable trends we find interesting, such as error, failed login attempts, etc... Meaning, we also erase nothing, but let software processes smooth over the sheer volume of data for us...
Also, as far as additional security items we could implement, I agree we definitely could go farther. The issue, however, is simply time and cost. Meaning, perfect security protection is nearly cost prohibitive, and since we have limited resources we try to pick a fine balance of security, detection, and functionality that works for us. Yes, it is quite possible that a security hole could be found and exploited in apache2, but considering its age and the fact that we do a nightly tree sync, in my opinion, it is a risk that my organization can take and be able to recover from..
Thanks for the free advice, however, as I very much appreciate reading it...:)
I agree it is a balance.. It would appear that your interests are more lended towards cost, which I definitely can respect that... In fact, that is what I enjoy the most about the beer making community versus the wine making community....
As far as the artificial carbonation... Try this one time.. Buy a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and any other decent Pale Ale you like, and compare the taste of the two. You will notice with the SN that it has a very distinct yeasty flavor to it, which many beer "snobs" (including me I guess), say helps bring out the subtle flavors in the beer better... Meaning, I generally miss the subtle yeasty bite in my beer.. Also, I enjoy the fact that the yeast prevents oxidation as well, and keeps the beer fresh for 5 to 8 years on average. High gravity beers can be stored even longer than that...
Keep in mind that for me, tasting different beers I enjoy much more than drinking. In fact, I only typically drink 2 to 3 beer a week....:)
I guess it depends on the type of system you are running, and how users interact with it. Most of what I do is building appliance based servers, so my focus is more on keeping users away from the shell, and limiting the number of services (http primarily) they can use. For me, adding SELinux to the mix on something like what I have would be allot more painful and time consuming to implement, and probably not worth the extra time...
If you have to allow actually users to use a shell on that box, however, I would agree that a SELinux approach is critical because you cannot really determine where you will get attacked from...
Yes, I know that the home brewing community is Canada is allot larger than in the US, which I really think it neat.
I heard in the news that California is considering an alcohol tax increase, so I suspect as the US economy continues to turn sour, that other states will increase their taxes as well... I am not a big fan of adding taxes, but it would nice if there were "incentives" to help foster more of a home brewing community in the US... Right now probably 85% of the people who do it just do it a couple of times and give up.. Its kind of sad actually...
Listen, we might looking at this for a different perspective... Can you make beer cheap??? Absolutely.... Can you do that to match the exact quality of a true premium... That is allot harder...
Realistically, from my experience to get the same quality and consistency of true premium ales/lagers there are allot of things required. Excluding lagers, the cost of yeast starter prep work, mash tuns, water purifying/ph correction/mineral corrections... Even with ales you must keep the at the optimum fermentation range of 65F during the entire primary ferment. This takes equipment, time, and cost which all most be figured in. Also, keep in mind that the cost of time is a big one. Also, it must spend several weeks in the secondary being monitored for clarity, and depending on the type of grain might need additional clarification related items/procedures. Once again... Time and Expense... Third, the time and expense to bottle as I general do not like artificial CO2 because for most premiums it alters the unique living beer taste... I could go on, because I hope you are seeing my point... Making beer is easy... Making true high end beers (which is where the true savings is) is not...
In short... I do this because I do believe it makes a difference and I appreciate the added quality of taste, but I really do not pretend by saying that I save money by doing it. I am constantly reminded with the amount of equipment, and the space it takes up, that saving much money is unlikely...
Listen, we might looking at this for a different perspective... Can you make beer cheap??? Absolutely.... Can you do that to match the exact quality of a true premium... That is allot harder...
Realistically, from my experience to get the same quality and consistency of true premium ales/lagers there are allot of things required. Excluding lagers, the cost of yeast starter prep work, mash tuns, water purifying/ph correction/mineral corrections... Even with ales you must keep the at the optimum fermentation range of 65F during the entire primary ferment. This takes equipment, time, and cost which all most be figured in. Also, keep in mind that the cost of time is a big one. Also, it must spend several weeks in the secondary being monitored for clarity, and depending on the type of grain might need additional clarification related items/procedures. Once again... Time and Expense... Third, the time and expense to bottle as I general do not like artificial CO2 because for most premiums it alters the unique living beer taste... I could go on, because I hope you are seeing my point... Making beer is easy... Making true high end beers (which is where the true savings is) is not...
In short... I do this because I do believe it makes a difference and I appreciate the added quality of taste, but I really do not pretend by saying that I save money by doing it. I am constantly reminded with the amount of equipment, and the space it takes up, that saving much money is unlikely...
I have made beer for many years (extract and all grain), and I can tell you that most real ales and lagers, the best you can do is about break even. Meaning, on the high end side of beers, you can do allot better because their transportation costs kill them, but for many of the domestic beers its very close... I will admit that all grain brewing is cheaper than extract, but... Well you get my point...
Anyway, the reason I still brew my own beer is simply because I think the quality is better, just as I think OSS is as well. Most import beers ae oxidized quite heavily by the time you get them, just as with most commercial software (Vista comes to mind here) is as well, but if you brew it completely on your own, especially with natural carbonation, then that living beer can last for at least a decade. For OSS, it actually is allot longer...:)
The USMA academy is some of the best of the best. Meaning, these guys have to be appointed by two state senators to even apply... That is why the kids that go there are the top 2% of the nation. Also, did I also mention that many of the the US best leaders came from West Point?:)
In addition, I have several systems that run at the USMA, and know their admin personally. They have a pretty good network setup simply because they never have the money they need so they are forced to implement the best solution rather than the most expensive solution.
You really do not need to find an example... They used this procedure during the Challenger accident. Meaning, once the main booster had already exploded, they quickly detonated the individual spiraling side boosters to prevent potential problems. In this case the crew and craft had already separated and were presumed already dead, but they still needed to use the detonation procedure...
I agree with you 100% that legitimate small time inventors are the ones we need to protect. In fact, they are the entire reason that the patent system was created. Meaning, big businesses do not get patents to aid in getting investment.
Also, It is the bad apples we need to get rid of.... I am certainly not against patents as you see other people type. I just want them to go back to what they were originally designed for....
In short, protection of small business innovation is exactly what what we need right now because they are the future of this country...
I think you probably already know I am not kidding....
And yes, you are correct on one thing... Originally the US patent system was designed to help investment primarily for small time businesses. Those days for now are over... As it stands right now, the US patent system primarily profits large businesses to protect being being displaced. That is a major problem because it goes against a fundamental principle of capitalism... Meaning, instead of the best company winning, it is rather the company that has the most patents...
Also, I can tell you from allot of experience that "something unique" is very rare. Meaning, even your biggest innovations are changes in existing designs. For example, MS did not create the first operating system. Even further, if the patent system we have today was applied back in the 1970's, then I can assure you that MS or like companies would not exist today. Also, dont take my word for it because that was exactly what Mr. Gates said himself in the 90's....
This will only work to a point.... I am not disagreeing that it is in the best interest of your company to do this. Unfortunately, however, unless you have opened up a completely new market space, which is rare, then such a strategy can only go so far. Meaning, you will find your company only being able to cross license with smaller or equal size companies, and not able to grow beyond a certain point no matter how good your innovational capabilities are... This is not capitalism, but a perversion of it...
In the end it is congresses responsibility to create a fair and level playing field in business... This is clearly a role that they are failing at currently. Until this changes, then further innovation will be greatly harmed...
Well, let me put it this way... Large businesses use patents in a strategy of what they call an "IP moat".... Meaning, the main reason MS, IBM, and countless other businesses are building huge patent portfolios are not because of all of the "innovation" they are doing, but rather because of their desire to protect their core business from any potential rising competition...
At first look, this does not seem like a bad thing, until you realize that most of the large businesses that exist today could have never grown up in such an environment.... Meaning, for a free market capitalism system to function, older obsolete businesses must die and new more competitive businesses must rise to take their place. In the current business environment, this mechanism cannot occur...
So, do you still think that startups are not being hurt??:)
In fairness, history tells me that this behavior was caused by "too good of times" for too long. Meaning, during the good times people really just ignore what their elected officials do. Once things turn sour for more than a brief period, however, this will change... I guess only time will tell if history will repeat itself..:)
How big businesses, attorneys, and the court system have hijacked our us patent system to squelch new entrepreneur innovation in the US...
Let me summarize the conclusion as well... Good ideas on IP change do not matter at this point because nothing meaningful will happen until we can somehow get congress to stop their continuous feeding at the trough of corporate lobbyists...
My thought is that this growth will create huge profits for entrepreneurs who develop solutions for all the problems that these new people will cause...:)
First, this is what is known in the political world as a "trial balloon". Meaning, they are using a inside source to release the information to see it is builds traction without risk of embarrassment..
Secondly, don't think that 250 Gig per month is where they want to be. Meaning, they do not have even close the amount of bandwidth available to provide this level to their customers. What I am sure they are wanting to do, however, is to get buy in a 250G limit, and reduce that amount over time to something closer to 20G per month.
Slashdot Mirror
Using the Alaskan crab fishing as an example is laughable at best... The only reason these guys are able to pull off the stupid things they do is because OSHA has not decided to put an end to it...
Meaning, no job is just accepted to be risky by nature, because there really is no reason for it. As OSHA has shown time and time again, safety is always built on the procedures put in place that you follow every-time. It is these procedures that keep people safe. It is only when people get lazy, and stop following the procedures that they get hurt...
Being an engineer myself, I would say that this looks like a serious design flaw to me... Meaning, if a little rock could ruin the work of thousands of people, hundreds of millions of dollars in project funding, and years of work, I am left scratching my head of why this landing strategy was a good idea?? I mean, as the Viking missions showed, there are more than one way to land a craft on a planet...
In short, scientists study, but all engineers are very comfortable with the idea of managed risk. It is part of nearly every design that is built. Yes, mistakes do occur from time to time, but I continue to see on every mission they do people jumping up and down whenever their craft successfully lands. The first couple of times they do this it is understandable, but after a couple of times you really have to start wondering if they are not designing their systems by looking at all the things that could go wrong, but rather just with the number of things they need to get it to get right...
All I am saying is I am having a hard time seeing why it is so much harder than it was in the 1970's when they landed the Viking missions, and it was the first time they ever touched down on the planet. Also, did I mention that both missions were successful...
I am not saying the job is easy, but many jobs are not. With the amount of money at stake on each mission, however, failures must to be rare, and not part of doing business. The groups in the 1960's understood this, and it is not because they had more money. It is because they accepted accountability...
I am pretty sure that OSHA would completely disagree with you...
Safety is built on putting together good procedures that you follow every time. It is only when you get careless and remove these procedures that people get hurt... Countless industrial and aircraft accidents back this up...
This is also the reason why flying is safer than it used to be, I might add... Meaning, checklists and safety procedures is what makes things reliable and safe to use...
Exactly... And they also landed 2 Viking crafts in 1976 without 1/10th the tools or even computers for that matter that we have now... And both missions were successful. They also put men on the moon without those tools or computers as well in under a decade where we are now proposing to do it in double the time just to recreate what they did in the 1960's.... Were these guys just luckier?? No... The difference was that these guys put aside the "hard and risky" non-accountability crap and got the job done...
The argument of 1000's of things that could go wrong are obvious as they are not the only ones who deal with predictable failure rates. All engineers (including me) do... Also since hundreds of millions of us tax payers dollars are at stake on every missions, I dont think it is unreasonable to hold people accountable for obvious failures....
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of hearing the "hard and risky" and "needle in a haystack" type phrases??
The first couple of times you do something is it hard and risky... After that, it is kind of part of the job description. Meaning, I am getting a little tired of them trying to use this excuse to cover their butts in case something goes unexpectedly wrong. It is a job, and they get paid quite well for doing it, I might add. I also understand that they are quite smart, but I am sure there is a huge line of smart people who would love to replace them.
In short, NASA and JPL needs to stop hiding behind corporate committees using the "Hard and Risky".. and the "Needle in a Haystack" type phrases and accept the responsibility of the job description. When they succeed, we praise them, but when they fail they need to know that there are consequences for messing up. Meaning it actually is someone's fault, and they will be fired when a mistake is made... Maybe by doing so we can avoid the simple metric to english conversion issues of the past...
You certainly sound like a wonderful admin, and I can appreciate that...
:)
As far as logs, we traditionally have a series of items, such as hd data, temp data, etc that we automate with an srsync snapshot nightly. From there, we use a custom app we wrote to parse out key word data or repeatable trends we find interesting, such as error, failed login attempts, etc... Meaning, we also erase nothing, but let software processes smooth over the sheer volume of data for us...
Also, as far as additional security items we could implement, I agree we definitely could go farther. The issue, however, is simply time and cost. Meaning, perfect security protection is nearly cost prohibitive, and since we have limited resources we try to pick a fine balance of security, detection, and functionality that works for us. Yes, it is quite possible that a security hole could be found and exploited in apache2, but considering its age and the fact that we do a nightly tree sync, in my opinion, it is a risk that my organization can take and be able to recover from..
Thanks for the free advice, however, as I very much appreciate reading it...
I agree it is a balance.. It would appear that your interests are more lended towards cost, which I definitely can respect that... In fact, that is what I enjoy the most about the beer making community versus the wine making community....
:)
As far as the artificial carbonation... Try this one time.. Buy a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and any other decent Pale Ale you like, and compare the taste of the two. You will notice with the SN that it has a very distinct yeasty flavor to it, which many beer "snobs" (including me I guess), say helps bring out the subtle flavors in the beer better... Meaning, I generally miss the subtle yeasty bite in my beer.. Also, I enjoy the fact that the yeast prevents oxidation as well, and keeps the beer fresh for 5 to 8 years on average. High gravity beers can be stored even longer than that...
Keep in mind that for me, tasting different beers I enjoy much more than drinking. In fact, I only typically drink 2 to 3 beer a week....
I guess it depends on the type of system you are running, and how users interact with it. Most of what I do is building appliance based servers, so my focus is more on keeping users away from the shell, and limiting the number of services (http primarily) they can use. For me, adding SELinux to the mix on something like what I have would be allot more painful and time consuming to implement, and probably not worth the extra time...
If you have to allow actually users to use a shell on that box, however, I would agree that a SELinux approach is critical because you cannot really determine where you will get attacked from...
Yes, I know that the home brewing community is Canada is allot larger than in the US, which I really think it neat.
I heard in the news that California is considering an alcohol tax increase, so I suspect as the US economy continues to turn sour, that other states will increase their taxes as well... I am not a big fan of adding taxes, but it would nice if there were "incentives" to help foster more of a home brewing community in the US... Right now probably 85% of the people who do it just do it a couple of times and give up.. Its kind of sad actually...
Listen, we might looking at this for a different perspective... Can you make beer cheap??? Absolutely.... Can you do that to match the exact quality of a true premium... That is allot harder...
Realistically, from my experience to get the same quality and consistency of true premium ales/lagers there are allot of things required. Excluding lagers, the cost of yeast starter prep work, mash tuns, water purifying/ph correction/mineral corrections... Even with ales you must keep the at the optimum fermentation range of 65F during the entire primary ferment. This takes equipment, time, and cost which all most be figured in. Also, keep in mind that the cost of time is a big one. Also, it must spend several weeks in the secondary being monitored for clarity, and depending on the type of grain might need additional clarification related items/procedures. Once again... Time and Expense... Third, the time and expense to bottle as I general do not like artificial CO2 because for most premiums it alters the unique living beer taste... I could go on, because I hope you are seeing my point... Making beer is easy... Making true high end beers (which is where the true savings is) is not...
In short... I do this because I do believe it makes a difference and I appreciate the added quality of taste, but I really do not pretend by saying that I save money by doing it. I am constantly reminded with the amount of equipment, and the space it takes up, that saving much money is unlikely...
Listen, we might looking at this for a different perspective... Can you make beer cheap??? Absolutely.... Can you do that to match the exact quality of a true premium... That is allot harder...
Realistically, from my experience to get the same quality and consistency of true premium ales/lagers there are allot of things required. Excluding lagers, the cost of yeast starter prep work, mash tuns, water purifying/ph correction/mineral corrections... Even with ales you must keep the at the optimum fermentation range of 65F during the entire primary ferment. This takes equipment, time, and cost which all most be figured in. Also, keep in mind that the cost of time is a big one. Also, it must spend several weeks in the secondary being monitored for clarity, and depending on the type of grain might need additional clarification related items/procedures. Once again... Time and Expense... Third, the time and expense to bottle as I general do not like artificial CO2 because for most premiums it alters the unique living beer taste... I could go on, because I hope you are seeing my point... Making beer is easy... Making true high end beers (which is where the true savings is) is not...
In short... I do this because I do believe it makes a difference and I appreciate the added quality of taste, but I really do not pretend by saying that I save money by doing it. I am constantly reminded with the amount of equipment, and the space it takes up, that saving much money is unlikely...
I have made beer for many years (extract and all grain), and I can tell you that most real ales and lagers, the best you can do is about break even. Meaning, on the high end side of beers, you can do allot better because their transportation costs kill them, but for many of the domestic beers its very close... I will admit that all grain brewing is cheaper than extract, but... Well you get my point...
:)
Anyway, the reason I still brew my own beer is simply because I think the quality is better, just as I think OSS is as well. Most import beers ae oxidized quite heavily by the time you get them, just as with most commercial software (Vista comes to mind here) is as well, but if you brew it completely on your own, especially with natural carbonation, then that living beer can last for at least a decade. For OSS, it actually is allot longer...
The USMA academy is some of the best of the best. Meaning, these guys have to be appointed by two state senators to even apply... That is why the kids that go there are the top 2% of the nation. Also, did I also mention that many of the the US best leaders came from West Point? :)
In addition, I have several systems that run at the USMA, and know their admin personally. They have a pretty good network setup simply because they never have the money they need so they are forced to implement the best solution rather than the most expensive solution.
You really do not need to find an example... They used this procedure during the Challenger accident. Meaning, once the main booster had already exploded, they quickly detonated the individual spiraling side boosters to prevent potential problems. In this case the crew and craft had already separated and were presumed already dead, but they still needed to use the detonation procedure...
I agree with you 100% that legitimate small time inventors are the ones we need to protect. In fact, they are the entire reason that the patent system was created. Meaning, big businesses do not get patents to aid in getting investment.
Also, It is the bad apples we need to get rid of.... I am certainly not against patents as you see other people type. I just want them to go back to what they were originally designed for....
In short, protection of small business innovation is exactly what what we need right now because they are the future of this country...
I think you probably already know I am not kidding....
And yes, you are correct on one thing... Originally the US patent system was designed to help investment primarily for small time businesses. Those days for now are over... As it stands right now, the US patent system primarily profits large businesses to protect being being displaced. That is a major problem because it goes against a fundamental principle of capitalism... Meaning, instead of the best company winning, it is rather the company that has the most patents...
Also, I can tell you from allot of experience that "something unique" is very rare. Meaning, even your biggest innovations are changes in existing designs. For example, MS did not create the first operating system. Even further, if the patent system we have today was applied back in the 1970's, then I can assure you that MS or like companies would not exist today. Also, dont take my word for it because that was exactly what Mr. Gates said himself in the 90's....
This will only work to a point.... I am not disagreeing that it is in the best interest of your company to do this. Unfortunately, however, unless you have opened up a completely new market space, which is rare, then such a strategy can only go so far. Meaning, you will find your company only being able to cross license with smaller or equal size companies, and not able to grow beyond a certain point no matter how good your innovational capabilities are... This is not capitalism, but a perversion of it...
In the end it is congresses responsibility to create a fair and level playing field in business... This is clearly a role that they are failing at currently. Until this changes, then further innovation will be greatly harmed...
I didn't realize that Hollywood had vested interests in patents??? What in the world would they need patents for ?? :)
Well, let me put it this way... Large businesses use patents in a strategy of what they call an "IP moat".... Meaning, the main reason MS, IBM, and countless other businesses are building huge patent portfolios are not because of all of the "innovation" they are doing, but rather because of their desire to protect their core business from any potential rising competition...
:)
At first look, this does not seem like a bad thing, until you realize that most of the large businesses that exist today could have never grown up in such an environment.... Meaning, for a free market capitalism system to function, older obsolete businesses must die and new more competitive businesses must rise to take their place. In the current business environment, this mechanism cannot occur...
So, do you still think that startups are not being hurt??
Exactly my point...
:)
In fairness, history tells me that this behavior was caused by "too good of times" for too long. Meaning, during the good times people really just ignore what their elected officials do. Once things turn sour for more than a brief period, however, this will change... I guess only time will tell if history will repeat itself..
How big businesses, attorneys, and the court system have hijacked our us patent system to squelch new entrepreneur innovation in the US...
Let me summarize the conclusion as well... Good ideas on IP change do not matter at this point because nothing meaningful will happen until we can somehow get congress to stop their continuous feeding at the trough of corporate lobbyists...
Speak for yourself....
:)
My thought is that this growth will create huge profits for entrepreneurs who develop solutions for all the problems that these new people will cause...
I agree...
:)
Also, a bright way to look at this is that Vista is creating allot more havoc everyday that SP3 could ever generate in its entire rollout...
First, this is what is known in the political world as a "trial balloon". Meaning, they are using a inside source to release the information to see it is builds traction without risk of embarrassment..
Secondly, don't think that 250 Gig per month is where they want to be. Meaning, they do not have even close the amount of bandwidth available to provide this level to their customers. What I am sure they are wanting to do, however, is to get buy in a 250G limit, and reduce that amount over time to something closer to 20G per month.