I'm a sysadmin and we have 400+ Windows XP machines on our network.
It does "work well" for them. Of course, that means they can generally run the programs they need at a reasonable speed with a minimum of glitches.
So XP works well enough for folks that are comfortable with it. It doesn't have the rich features, deep pool of easy-to-install applications, lightning speed, or sophisticated visual effects that Linux does, but it does "work well" for them.
It's "good enough" for their work -- which is all they're trying to do. That makes it the right tool for the job.
Personally, though, I find working with Windows to feel like fingernails on a chalkboard compared to Ubuntu.
I'm not sure the problem is so much technical as process: the Orion is a "Cost Plus" contract.
Cost plus is always likely to see cost overruns and major delays. The more expensive and the longer it takes, the more the contractors make. There's no motivation to be on time and under budget.
Well, I'll say that cost of the system isn't the real question because THERE IS NO SYSTEM.
They haven't developed an early warning system. They've just seen some changes in the rock prior to earthquakes which lead them to believe that it might be possible to develop a system of some sort that would provide early warning.
As the summary of the article says:
"The team says we are a long way from routine tremor forecasts but the latest findings hold out hope that such services might be possible one day."
Make sure to tell that to the Homeland Security agents that drag you away after the wiretaps lead some other executive branch department to decide you are a threat. I'm sure they'll say "sorry" and go away.
Some of what you say is true in a theoretical sense, but theory and practice are two very different things.
Because it doesn't matter where the logs are housed as long as Google does business in the U.S.. Housing them elsewhere does not make them immune to a court order.
My comment isn't really directed at Windows: it was just a good recent example.
Let's see. OS 10.5.4 just came out recently. It's big.
Personally, I love Ubuntu as my desktop -- it's just a better interface for my purposes: cleaner, faster, and with a deep trove of software easily available via Synaptic. However, one OpenOffice update can be HUGE.
So, it really was just an example and not a dig against your OS of choice. I use a bit of everything and not much into OS wars.
What you say is true for photovoltaics, but you can use concentrated sunlight to make steam to turn a turbine or use it other ways. That cuts some of the downsides.
PV solar is still (a) expensive, (b) inefficient, and (c) pretty environmentally bad in terms of manufacturing the cells. Of course the increase in demand for PV cells is driving innovation and improvement in those areas.
Then again, I love a giant solar furnace, so maybe I'm biased.:-)
Chance that solar power installations may do harm to the environment: probably quite low, but non-zero. Chance that a coal-fired power plant does significant harm to the environment: 100%
If we can displace some power sources that we KNOW have big negatives with some we're pretty sure won't, then yeah: let's build now and watch for any unexpected consequences as we go forward.
Are Bush and Co. big oil folks? Yep. Do I think the Bush administration has been a tremendous screw-up. Definitely.
Are they responsible for the high cost of oil? Only partly.
From what I can tell (yeah, I geek out a bit over economics and finance stuff), *most* of the cost of oil is due to declining growth in production intersecting increasing growth in demand. When that happens price tends to jump quickly and far.
There are things that change the timing of the price boom and some of those were under the Bush administration's control, but the biggest factor is good old supply and demand.
You missed the point of this thread. "gbjbaanb" was asking if this is a problem in regards to the fact that we need zinc as part of our diet. Vectronic responded that it is not a problem in that regard, and that the depletion is only problematic in terms of industrial uses. Vectronic is therefore not contradicting him/herself.
The person asking the question tells us about skills he lacks more than skills he has. Makes it awfully hard to make a useful suggestion.
The little offered is that he's done some tech support. If that's your strong suite, then the answer for a newly-minted college grad from Comp Sci is...
tech support.
Then again, if you don't really like that work you should just go find something completely different to do. A solid technical degree has appeal to employers even when it has nothing to do with the job.
Hmmm... if you're just starting out then go find a job (any job!) related to what you really want to do. Worry less about the money or benefits. Fresh out of college you just want a foot in the door of the career you really want even if there are long hours and little pay. After three years in the workforce potential employers care EVERYTHING about your experience and NOTHING about your degree.
No central standards body? Oh dear! I guess we'll have to decentralize the process and make it transparent... an open standards process!
Nah, I think Microsoft actually likes ISO because they've found ways to distort it. However, the gp post is spot on: ISO will either clean up its act or lose credibility -- and for an organization whose existence relies on credibility that means extinction.
As a science geek (degree in physics) it's an open question to me and if you take a stand in EITHER direction I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
Now, that's different from the way I might handle many scientific questions, but not different from all.
For example, it was once assumed that there existed an "ether" in which everything moved. The ether provided the frame of reference for every object in the universe. In fact, the existence of the ether was so accepted that the scientific world was stunned when attempts to measure the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether failed miserably (the Michelson-Morley experiment). Relativity shook the scientific world by doing away with the ether entirely. The burden ended up being on relativity to prove itself.
The possibility of a soul is a similar problem to me. Postulating the existence of a soul explains conciousness nicely. If we really are nothing more than complex organic computational systems you then need to explain what gives rise to conciousness. Maybe it really is just an artefact of self-monitoring systems, but it still strikes me as unnecessary. On the other hand, postulating a soul opens another can or worms.
So in terms of conciousness, you either argue against a soul (in which case you need to show a mechanism for conciousness in your model of the universe) or for a soul (which explains the existence of conciousness but which has never been directly measured in a laboratory).
This is different from something like Bigfoot, UFO's, or Santa in that none of those contribute anything to explaining phenomena for which we lack explanations. For these types of claims the burden of proof is overwhelmingly placed on those who claim the existence of the phenomena in question.
The existence of the soul strikes me as more like the existence of the ether. Maybe it's there. Maybe it's not. However, it serves as an explanation for conciousness and unless you dismiss the existence of conciousness or can explain it otherwise then taking a stand that the soul does NOT exist is as much an act of faith as anything else.
respect from management for those who are knowledgeable about technology is lower than ever
I think you can expand that from just management and include the population as a whole.
Read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. He bemoaned the fact that so few of our population have the basic knowledge to understand the difference between science and all the crap stuff out there like astrology.
It's the same with technology: for most people we have already passed the point about which Arthur C Clarke spoke:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Most people don't respect/appreciate what engineers do because they don't even have a reference point from which to evaluate what they do. It's all magic to them.
How does a young person today get started? I built rockets, flying machines, and played with chemistry sets. I took apart old tube televisions. I tried concocting rocket fuel. Now we're a safety-is-paramount-consumer-only-don't-void-the-warranty society. No wonder it all seems like magic to most people! Most things these days are made not only not to be "user-serviceable" but to actively prevent anyone from nosing around under the hood.
When people have no idea whatsoever what it is engineers do they have no way of assessing how much respect it deserves.
what's good for the company in the long term view isn't necessarily good for the customers, similarly Just being family owned as opposed to traded doesn't make it any better. You're correct: it "isn't necessarily good for the customers". However, taking the long view *does* encourage decisions which are better for customers because customers are easier to keep than replace. Your long-term future prospects are often determined by how you treat your current customers.
Doesn't/Didn't Bill Gates own a majority stock in Microsoft? Doesn't the Walt Family own a majority stock in Walmart? Does being "owned" by an individual or family with a long term view do anything to make the company any less evil? Less evil? No. Again, though, a long-term view often requires that you do look after your customers lest they go elsewhere. If your goals are short-term, then screwing the customer and walking away is easier to do.
I think you're close in regards to corporate ownership and long-term planning, but not quite there.
It's not the multitude of owners that are the problem: it's that so many of these owners are not investors but speculators.
A speculator is in for the quick buck. An investor is in for the long haul.
Investors profit when the company builds itself up. Speculators often profit when a company tears itself down -- usually by killing R&D or quality control and giving the money "saved" to the stockholders. The speculators walk away with the cash before the effects of the profit-taking actions damage the company (look at what happened to Apple when they brought in that CEO from Pepsi).
I'd suggest we keep long-term capital gains taxes very low for stocks held more than five years and very high for stocks held less than two. Give stockholders a real long-term stake in the company and you'll get better long-term decisions coming out of the company. That's better for the company and better for the country overall.
A botnet's great strength is that it is dispersed. House it only on military computers and you cripple it. Put it "out there" in some form, though, and you risk having the CNC reverse engineered and the botnet might suddenly "belong" to someone else.
I feel pretty burned out at times as well (14 years in IT doing most of what you named except for sales and AIX). It pays well, but sometimes it just doesn't excite, right?
There is NO RIGHT ANSWER here.
How important is the money to you and your family? If you are in debt and living paycheck to paycheck then you need to handle that first.
Is work that important to you? Many people I know use work to pay the bills while they pursue their passions outside of work. Do you have passions outside of work that you are exploring?
Is it to much time commitment? Maybe you're working too many hours to have a real life. Just making your personal life a bigger priority might help.
Thought about becoming and entrepreneur? Build your own company? It would definitely be stimulating and probably financially rewarding if you don't mind taking some risks.
I don't know -- I wish I had a GOOD answer for you. Heck, I wish I had a good answer for ME. Nothing abnormal about how you feel. People have been struggling with it ever since 9 to 5 was invented -- and probably before.
Let me also add that you might like "Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career" by Herminia Ibarra. If you are thinking about a big change, it has some good insights on how big changes occur for people and how best to get started in that direction.
I don't care one bit for PETA. As an organization, their stands are too radical and their methods frequently too extreme for my tastes.
I'm also definitely omnivorous and hope to stay that way.
But... meat production requires a huge grain input for the number of calories produced and overconsumption of meat does relate directly to cardiovascular disease. Therefore, if PETA did get their way we would see reductions in at least two of the three problems you would rather see addressed.
On another note, if you find it a waste that people are campaigning against meat while hunger, disease and war are priorities what on earth are you doing hanging out making comments on Slashdot when you could be addressing those issues?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a sysadmin and we have 400+ Windows XP machines on our network.
It does "work well" for them. Of course, that means they can generally run the programs they need at a reasonable speed with a minimum of glitches.
So XP works well enough for folks that are comfortable with it. It doesn't have the rich features, deep pool of easy-to-install applications, lightning speed, or sophisticated visual effects that Linux does, but it does "work well" for them.
It's "good enough" for their work -- which is all they're trying to do. That makes it the right tool for the job.
Personally, though, I find working with Windows to feel like fingernails on a chalkboard compared to Ubuntu.
I'm not sure the problem is so much technical as process: the Orion is a "Cost Plus" contract.
Cost plus is always likely to see cost overruns and major delays. The more expensive and the longer it takes, the more the contractors make. There's no motivation to be on time and under budget.
Hmm... maybe I could use one to boost my AT&T cell reception...
Well, I'll say that cost of the system isn't the real question because THERE IS NO SYSTEM.
They haven't developed an early warning system. They've just seen some changes in the rock prior to earthquakes which lead them to believe that it might be possible to develop a system of some sort that would provide early warning.
As the summary of the article says:
"The team says we are a long way from routine tremor forecasts but the latest findings hold out hope that such services might be possible one day."
He has no direct authority?
Make sure to tell that to the Homeland Security agents that drag you away after the wiretaps lead some other executive branch department to decide you are a threat. I'm sure they'll say "sorry" and go away.
Some of what you say is true in a theoretical sense, but theory and practice are two very different things.
Come on, folks! It's News for Nerds, you should know better!
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(or, National Acronym Society of America) In either case, not Nasa.
Both Bradbury and Heinlein are wonderful. I loved The Martian Chronicles in Junior High.
On the Heinlein side, check out his youth fiction rather than his more political stuff. He wrote a bunch of novels targeted directly at youth.
Because it doesn't matter where the logs are housed as long as Google does business in the U.S.. Housing them elsewhere does not make them immune to a court order.
My comment isn't really directed at Windows: it was just a good recent example.
Let's see. OS 10.5.4 just came out recently. It's big.
Personally, I love Ubuntu as my desktop -- it's just a better interface for my purposes: cleaner, faster, and with a deep trove of software easily available via Synaptic. However, one OpenOffice update can be HUGE.
So, it really was just an example and not a dig against your OS of choice. I use a bit of everything and not much into OS wars.
What you say is true for photovoltaics, but you can use concentrated sunlight to make steam to turn a turbine or use it other ways. That cuts some of the downsides.
:-)
PV solar is still (a) expensive, (b) inefficient, and (c) pretty environmentally bad in terms of manufacturing the cells. Of course the increase in demand for PV cells is driving innovation and improvement in those areas.
Then again, I love a giant solar furnace, so maybe I'm biased.
Chance that solar power installations may do harm to the environment: probably quite low, but non-zero.
Chance that a coal-fired power plant does significant harm to the environment: 100%
If we can displace some power sources that we KNOW have big negatives with some we're pretty sure won't, then yeah: let's build now and watch for any unexpected consequences as we go forward.
Are Bush and Co. big oil folks? Yep.
Do I think the Bush administration has been a tremendous screw-up. Definitely.
Are they responsible for the high cost of oil? Only partly.
From what I can tell (yeah, I geek out a bit over economics and finance stuff), *most* of the cost of oil is due to declining growth in production intersecting increasing growth in demand. When that happens price tends to jump quickly and far.
There are things that change the timing of the price boom and some of those were under the Bush administration's control, but the biggest factor is good old supply and demand.
Not to mention software patches! How many dial-up users are going to install XP SP3?
Fortunately for the spammers, those unpatched systems don't need much bandwidth to send lots of two line text-only spam.
Number one solution to using less isn't 100+mpg cars, fully recycled products, etc. but simply fewer people.
If global population continues climbing then it overwhelms anything else you can do.
Now how you get population to level out or even decline is another can of worms.
You missed the point of this thread. "gbjbaanb" was asking if this is a problem in regards to the fact that we need zinc as part of our diet. Vectronic responded that it is not a problem in that regard, and that the depletion is only problematic in terms of industrial uses. Vectronic is therefore not contradicting him/herself.
Actually, you have a point.
The person asking the question tells us about skills he lacks more than skills he has. Makes it awfully hard to make a useful suggestion.
The little offered is that he's done some tech support. If that's your strong suite, then the answer for a newly-minted college grad from Comp Sci is...
tech support.
Then again, if you don't really like that work you should just go find something completely different to do. A solid technical degree has appeal to employers even when it has nothing to do with the job.
Hmmm... if you're just starting out then go find a job (any job!) related to what you really want to do. Worry less about the money or benefits. Fresh out of college you just want a foot in the door of the career you really want even if there are long hours and little pay. After three years in the workforce potential employers care EVERYTHING about your experience and NOTHING about your degree.
No central standards body? Oh dear! I guess we'll have to decentralize the process and make it transparent... an open standards process!
Nah, I think Microsoft actually likes ISO because they've found ways to distort it. However, the gp post is spot on: ISO will either clean up its act or lose credibility -- and for an organization whose existence relies on credibility that means extinction.
Do souls exist?
As a science geek (degree in physics) it's an open question to me and if you take a stand in EITHER direction I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
Now, that's different from the way I might handle many scientific questions, but not different from all.
For example, it was once assumed that there existed an "ether" in which everything moved. The ether provided the frame of reference for every object in the universe. In fact, the existence of the ether was so accepted that the scientific world was stunned when attempts to measure the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether failed miserably (the Michelson-Morley experiment). Relativity shook the scientific world by doing away with the ether entirely. The burden ended up being on relativity to prove itself.
The possibility of a soul is a similar problem to me. Postulating the existence of a soul explains conciousness nicely. If we really are nothing more than complex organic computational systems you then need to explain what gives rise to conciousness. Maybe it really is just an artefact of self-monitoring systems, but it still strikes me as unnecessary. On the other hand, postulating a soul opens another can or worms.
So in terms of conciousness, you either argue against a soul (in which case you need to show a mechanism for conciousness in your model of the universe) or for a soul (which explains the existence of conciousness but which has never been directly measured in a laboratory).
This is different from something like Bigfoot, UFO's, or Santa in that none of those contribute anything to explaining phenomena for which we lack explanations. For these types of claims the burden of proof is overwhelmingly placed on those who claim the existence of the phenomena in question.
The existence of the soul strikes me as more like the existence of the ether. Maybe it's there. Maybe it's not. However, it serves as an explanation for conciousness and unless you dismiss the existence of conciousness or can explain it otherwise then taking a stand that the soul does NOT exist is as much an act of faith as anything else.
I think you can expand that from just management and include the population as a whole.
Read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. He bemoaned the fact that so few of our population have the basic knowledge to understand the difference between science and all the crap stuff out there like astrology.
It's the same with technology: for most people we have already passed the point about which Arthur C Clarke spoke:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Most people don't respect/appreciate what engineers do because they don't even have a reference point from which to evaluate what they do. It's all magic to them.
How does a young person today get started? I built rockets, flying machines, and played with chemistry sets. I took apart old tube televisions. I tried concocting rocket fuel. Now we're a safety-is-paramount-consumer-only-don't-void-the-warranty society. No wonder it all seems like magic to most people! Most things these days are made not only not to be "user-serviceable" but to actively prevent anyone from nosing around under the hood.
When people have no idea whatsoever what it is engineers do they have no way of assessing how much respect it deserves.I think you're close in regards to corporate ownership and long-term planning, but not quite there.
It's not the multitude of owners that are the problem: it's that so many of these owners are not investors but speculators.
A speculator is in for the quick buck.
An investor is in for the long haul.
Investors profit when the company builds itself up. Speculators often profit when a company tears itself down -- usually by killing R&D or quality control and giving the money "saved" to the stockholders. The speculators walk away with the cash before the effects of the profit-taking actions damage the company (look at what happened to Apple when they brought in that CEO from Pepsi).
I'd suggest we keep long-term capital gains taxes very low for stocks held more than five years and very high for stocks held less than two. Give stockholders a real long-term stake in the company and you'll get better long-term decisions coming out of the company. That's better for the company and better for the country overall.
You hit the nail on the head!
A botnet's great strength is that it is dispersed. House it only on military computers and you cripple it. Put it "out there" in some form, though, and you risk having the CNC reverse engineered and the botnet might suddenly "belong" to someone else.
Bad idea.
You are oversimplying -- dangerously so, I think.
Your kids MUST be your number one priority, but should NOT be your only purpose.
If they are, there won't be much left of you or your marriage or your future once they leave the nest.
Having only one point to your existence is unhealthy. Your kids your first priority? Good. The only purpose? Bad -- even for the kids.
Woah -- you sound like me.
I feel pretty burned out at times as well (14 years in IT doing most of what you named except for sales and AIX). It pays well, but sometimes it just doesn't excite, right?
There is NO RIGHT ANSWER here.
How important is the money to you and your family? If you are in debt and living paycheck to paycheck then you need to handle that first.
Is work that important to you? Many people I know use work to pay the bills while they pursue their passions outside of work. Do you have passions outside of work that you are exploring?
Is it to much time commitment? Maybe you're working too many hours to have a real life. Just making your personal life a bigger priority might help.
Thought about becoming and entrepreneur? Build your own company? It would definitely be stimulating and probably financially rewarding if you don't mind taking some risks.
I don't know -- I wish I had a GOOD answer for you. Heck, I wish I had a good answer for ME. Nothing abnormal about how you feel. People have been struggling with it ever since 9 to 5 was invented -- and probably before.
Let me also add that you might like "Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career" by Herminia Ibarra. If you are thinking about a big change, it has some good insights on how big changes occur for people and how best to get started in that direction.
I don't care one bit for PETA. As an organization, their stands are too radical and their methods frequently too extreme for my tastes.
I'm also definitely omnivorous and hope to stay that way.
But... meat production requires a huge grain input for the number of calories produced and overconsumption of meat does relate directly to cardiovascular disease. Therefore, if PETA did get their way we would see reductions in at least two of the three problems you would rather see addressed.
On another note, if you find it a waste that people are campaigning against meat while hunger, disease and war are priorities what on earth are you doing hanging out making comments on Slashdot when you could be addressing those issues?