I wouldn't hire you to defend *my* country. It isn't hard to come up with simple solutions that won't work.
First, 1000 earth-pounds of weights would have a large volume and probably be rigid. The only reason to weigh yourself down is if you expect to be doing physical work requiring mobility, comfort, etc. I'd like to see a workable design of "evenly distributed" weights.
Second, there's a thing called inertia. Staying on the ground is good, having 1000 pounds of mass isn't.
Third, where would these weights come from? Are you going to pay to launch 1000 pounds of dead weight into space? If they're metal, that would require moon-mining and moon-refining of metallic ore, which I'm not sure exists. If the weights aren't metal, then they're even larger.
This is a good analysis of the hardware side of the cost/benefit analysis of distributed computing, but that's nowhere near the full story.
For example, per the thesis of this article (that network communication is the largest expense of distributed computing), the Salesforce.com model isn't valid. Yet they're a great success story of computational outsourcing. Huh?
The key, I think, is that outsourcing eliminates distractions, and gets your employees back to working at your company's core competency. You're good at selling widgets, so you let Salesforce.com be your HR department.
This sort of analysis is useful for hardware, and could also be applied to meatware resources. It's the same essence of the TCO argument from Microsoft which, I think, does have validity.
When you bill your time at $50 an hour, you'll gladly pay $300 for an operating system rather than use a free one that takes 4 hours to install, 10 hours to learn command line computerese you never wanted to know anyway and many hours dealing with conversion and compatibility hassles.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't hire you to defend *my* country. It isn't hard to come up with simple solutions that won't work.
First, 1000 earth-pounds of weights would have a large volume and probably be rigid. The only reason to weigh yourself down is if you expect to be doing physical work requiring mobility, comfort, etc. I'd like to see a workable design of "evenly distributed" weights.
Second, there's a thing called inertia. Staying on the ground is good, having 1000 pounds of mass isn't.
Third, where would these weights come from? Are you going to pay to launch 1000 pounds of dead weight into space? If they're metal, that would require moon-mining and moon-refining of metallic ore, which I'm not sure exists. If the weights aren't metal, then they're even larger.
WiMP? Who was asleep at the switch in the marketing department?
This is a good analysis of the hardware side of the cost/benefit analysis of distributed computing, but that's nowhere near the full story.
For example, per the thesis of this article (that network communication is the largest expense of distributed computing), the Salesforce.com model isn't valid. Yet they're a great success story of computational outsourcing. Huh?
The key, I think, is that outsourcing eliminates distractions, and gets your employees back to working at your company's core competency. You're good at selling widgets, so you let Salesforce.com be your HR department.
This sort of analysis is useful for hardware, and could also be applied to meatware resources. It's the same essence of the TCO argument from Microsoft which, I think, does have validity.
When you bill your time at $50 an hour, you'll gladly pay $300 for an operating system rather than use a free one that takes 4 hours to install, 10 hours to learn command line computerese you never wanted to know anyway and many hours dealing with conversion and compatibility hassles.