I bet she would have traded all of her servants for the ability to fly around the world. Do you think Musk would give up his servants to be able to go to Mars tomorrow?
And if you are hungry in a western country, you need more help than just food.
but because she has to deal with thousands of investors who all want to give their 2 cents.
But that IS the job of the CEO; to delegate the working of the company and to keep the heat off of those people from higher ups (the board/the investors) so that they can do their job in peace.
It's the same all the way down to the lowest level manager. If you don't want to deal with it, remain a private company.
I grew up building (in both directions) anything and everything and agree 100% and have been saying the same thing forever. Also have a physics degree.
And it depends on the type of problems you are trying to solve, Any embedded control not requiring vision, you are safe under 1GHz. Simulation (of which games are a class of) can use as much as you have. The rule of thumb that we learned in EE computer design class was 1B ~= 1Hz.
I've written code professionally for decades, have held senior technical positions and have never taken a computer class. The best software engineer that I've met had a degree in English. Last I heard, they had been promoted up to director level. Software's an easy subject to pick up on your own with a book, compiler and a computer.
No that's not even close. If you show me your math, I'll show you where you're wrong. Remember, per capita energy use in the US is 250kwh per day. This includes embodied energies and transportation costs which without showing your math I'm assuming you forgot to factor in.
It's the process that matters and is all important. No one individual should be responsible for anything, that's one of the reasons for the process. You do not ever want to lay the responsibility for killing a bunch of people on one person.
Every launch of the shuttle had people internal to NASA claiming it was gong to end in disaster. There were all kinds of problems with the shuttle, the ones I remember off hand are the tiles and the engine. Even the SRBs were considered very dangerous after the fixes. What makes you better than these people who did not march in with a gun? Were they incompetent because they predicted doom yet nothing happened? If you wait for perfect safety, you are never going to fly.
Coming off of Apollo, this was the whole downfall of the Shuttle Program as NASA believed they could do anything and oversold their own capabilities. A little while later when they were running into problems the had to go to congress to make them the sole launch provider for the US to get the rates up high enough to meet the cost promises. That led to design changes needed by customers, primarily the DoD who didn't want the thing in the fit place but were being forced to use it.
Deciding to launch is a difficult job. There has always been some group or another at NASA predicting failure. And all but two of them were wrong. The problem then becomes how do you know who is right and who s being over cautious?
If you wait until everyone says OK, you're never going to fly. It has even been speculated that the Challenger flight would not have ended, even with the burnthrough, had it not hit worse than ever seen before wind shears. If this wee true, what then? You went to the press with a disaster story and nothing happened. Would they believe yu a second time?
It was never "proven" although it was thoroughly investigated. And of course NASA was gambling with their lives, that's what they do. The astronauts are well aware of this though it has been argued that Krista wasn't. One o the most damning things if you read the report is how NASA calculated the odds that they gave to the astronauts. In short, they didn't. They made up a bogus number in order to sell the program to congress and after a while the started to believe their own fables, hence the Feynman quote.
The heads at NASA honestly believed that it was safe (1/100.000 flights loss of crew) and their culture and structure was not set up to be able to disagree. This later led to the loss of the Columbia because everyone thought that foam shedding was OK because it had happened in the past with no catastrophic results even though engineers had argued that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Leadership even turned down an offer by the DoD to take a picure of the shuttle in orbit to look for any damage from the strike that was photographed at launch. Not because there was little they could have done, which was true, but because they were so confident in themselves.
Don't worry, humans were thriving when temperatures were 10 degrees warmer. We even survived the 8,200 year event when temperatures dropped by 4 degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet she would have traded all of her servants for the ability to fly around the world. Do you think Musk would give up his servants to be able to go to Mars tomorrow? And if you are hungry in a western country, you need more help than just food.
but because she has to deal with thousands of investors who all want to give their 2 cents.
But that IS the job of the CEO; to delegate the working of the company and to keep the heat off of those people from higher ups (the board/the investors) so that they can do their job in peace.
It's the same all the way down to the lowest level manager. If you don't want to deal with it, remain a private company.
I grew up building (in both directions) anything and everything and agree 100% and have been saying the same thing forever. Also have a physics degree.
Objection: Teaching a new subject takes away from teaching other subjects in more depth.
Says the person whose utter existence in every regard has been architected by sober, well trained engineers.
And it depends on the type of problems you are trying to solve, Any embedded control not requiring vision, you are safe under 1GHz. Simulation (of which games are a class of) can use as much as you have. The rule of thumb that we learned in EE computer design class was 1B ~= 1Hz.
I've written code professionally for decades, have held senior technical positions and have never taken a computer class. The best software engineer that I've met had a degree in English. Last I heard, they had been promoted up to director level. Software's an easy subject to pick up on your own with a book, compiler and a computer.
If only there was a way to increase the number of lawyers needed. Sounds like maybe something the government could help with, they're all lawyers.
Most poor in the west have more wealth than Marie could have hoped to imagine.
how about that?
No that's not even close. If you show me your math, I'll show you where you're wrong. Remember, per capita energy use in the US is 250kwh per day. This includes embodied energies and transportation costs which without showing your math I'm assuming you forgot to factor in.
Concrete balloon, huh? That should go over well.
Like a Lead Zeppelin.
For years /. and many other sites people kept extolling the virtues of a cashless society. Even now if you read all of the comments.
Complain about what they gave up for it.
It's the process that matters and is all important. No one individual should be responsible for anything, that's one of the reasons for the process. You do not ever want to lay the responsibility for killing a bunch of people on one person.
Read this: They Write the Right Stuff
Thank you. Too young to have been involved with this, but many man times in similar circumstances.
Every launch of the shuttle had people internal to NASA claiming it was gong to end in disaster. There were all kinds of problems with the shuttle, the ones I remember off hand are the tiles and the engine. Even the SRBs were considered very dangerous after the fixes. What makes you better than these people who did not march in with a gun? Were they incompetent because they predicted doom yet nothing happened? If you wait for perfect safety, you are never going to fly.
a culture of invincibility
Coming off of Apollo, this was the whole downfall of the Shuttle Program as NASA believed they could do anything and oversold their own capabilities. A little while later when they were running into problems the had to go to congress to make them the sole launch provider for the US to get the rates up high enough to meet the cost promises. That led to design changes needed by customers, primarily the DoD who didn't want the thing in the fit place but were being forced to use it.
Deciding to launch is a difficult job. There has always been some group or another at NASA predicting failure. And all but two of them were wrong. The problem then becomes how do you know who is right and who s being over cautious? If you wait until everyone says OK, you're never going to fly. It has even been speculated that the Challenger flight would not have ended, even with the burnthrough, had it not hit worse than ever seen before wind shears. If this wee true, what then? You went to the press with a disaster story and nothing happened. Would they believe yu a second time?
Feynman's book was a requirement in my engineering degree and also a job I had. (I'd read it before either :) )
It was never "proven" although it was thoroughly investigated. And of course NASA was gambling with their lives, that's what they do. The astronauts are well aware of this though it has been argued that Krista wasn't. One o the most damning things if you read the report is how NASA calculated the odds that they gave to the astronauts. In short, they didn't. They made up a bogus number in order to sell the program to congress and after a while the started to believe their own fables, hence the Feynman quote. The heads at NASA honestly believed that it was safe (1/100.000 flights loss of crew) and their culture and structure was not set up to be able to disagree. This later led to the loss of the Columbia because everyone thought that foam shedding was OK because it had happened in the past with no catastrophic results even though engineers had argued that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Leadership even turned down an offer by the DoD to take a picure of the shuttle in orbit to look for any damage from the strike that was photographed at launch. Not because there was little they could have done, which was true, but because they were so confident in themselves.
CO2 emissions are down in both the US and EU from 2005.
What gives you the right to solar and electric car while they have t`o be subsistence farmers?
Don't worry, humans were thriving when temperatures were 10 degrees warmer. We even survived the 8,200 year event when temperatures dropped by 4 degrees.
once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it
But we've been told we're already past that point, unless you disagree with the scientists.