I work for the largest telecoms company in the UK. We have a large number of Indian programmers on and off shore. Having worked very closely with both groups for the last year I can honestly say:
1. The coders on shore fall into 3 categories - excellent, average and useless. The %ages are no different from UK programmers. However, I see distinct cultural differences that result in Indian programmers being less productive than their UK counter parts. One example is 3 Indian programmers huddled around the same workstation to solve a problem. No big deal, but the 3-to-1 ratio of coder-to-problem does raise some eyebrows. The second is far more serious. I've lost track of the number of times an Indian coder has hit a problem and not sought help/advice from the designer/architect. Days will pass before this comes to light. Now they do work long hours, typically 8am to 7pm but how productive is this given the 2 scenarios above?
2. Communication offshore is very difficult. The time difference doesn't help but this can be worked around. However, without face-to-face meetings, an issue that should take 10 minutes to resolve can take days of follow up calls before it is settled. Add to this the reluctance of the off shore team to acknowledge that they too have hit a problem but will not seek help and things start to go bad. I'm not exaggerating when I say I have had phone conversations where the Indian guy does not understand what is to being asked of him/her, but reassuring replies 'Yes'
So, I think this outsourcing exercise is interesting, but is bound to failure. I already over-hear private discussions between management where they acknowledge that the situation isn't working, yet they were extremely enthusiastic about it at the start.
Here in the UK, plumbers and builders can earn a lot more than programmers, since some bright spark decided 50% of all school leavers should go to University. Result? Lots of CS graduates, very few plumbers. I know who I would call at 3am when the water is pouring through the ceiling.
I read the article. Hmm... the Shuttle has engines which are 99% efficient. However, could the Shuttle lift a payload to Earth Orbit that could get 3 men plus golf clubs;-) to the moon and back?
I envisaged a scenario where Saturn V would launch components of a Mars return vehicle to EO. Wasn't skylab assembled in this manner?
I was thinking... imagine if Saturn V technology (basically brute force coupled with reliabilty) was still available today. Add to this the latest software/hardware tech, and who knows where we could be by now. Mars, possibly.
I've owned Macs for a while and I've dabbled with Applescript for maybe 10 minutes at a stretch every couple of years or so. Really, is it that useful? Strikes me it's great in theory, but like Speech recognition it doesn't deliver... How many times a day can you get a kick out of asking your Mac 'What time is it?'
Microsoft could stop writing dull and ugly software if they wanted to. But they don't and they won't. The world moves on, however many lawyers or lobbyists you hire.
How about the snake-like robot splits into two autonomous parts when it sees an advantage to do so. It gets to its (supposedly military) objective, decides it would be useful to recce two perimeters... off they go. They could always meet up and reconnect later.
Convertors are attached to either the gas line or the electricity line coming into the home, office or factory
If a decentralised model for storing energy is desirable, why not go the extra mile and advocate the generation of power locally using sustainable methods? Solar, wind, hydro etc aren't available 24 hours a day, but when they are, (sunny/windy day, whatever) the energy could be used to split water. Hydrogen could then be stored for use by your fuel cell when needed.
This would reduce dependence on the grid, and help reduce CO2 emissions.
Ehh... am I missing something here? I thought the key to this technology is to use renewable energy sources to split water into Hydrogen. We all know energy isn't free, but we can generate it using sustainable sources then store it in the form of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen can then be used to power a fuel cell when needed, with the only by-product being H2O. Please enlighten me.
Cleaner than using renewable sources to split water? Hydro can be damaging to the immediate environment, but I suspect less so than caused by an open caste coal mine. It is possible to exploit Hydro using natural sites without resorting to flooding thousands of square kilometres of land, which I wouldn't support either.
Personally I think wind power is great, but is far more expensive
Depends what you include (or exclude) from the balance sheet.
It would be educational to actually visit a nuclear plant
I would like to do so. The way I see it, why bother generating hazardous waste if there are alternatives. Ok, you might be able to convince me that it can be buried safely under a mountain and monitored daily (like for the next 100 thousand years), but I guess this is going to cost money, right?
Let's see... in 50 years we might develop practical fusion power in which case our problems are solved. I would then rather read about the story of an antiquated wind turbine technology in the history books than the waste products still buried underground somewhere.
As a Brit, I was shocked when in New York at the one sidedness of reports on Israel-Palestine.
I agree. However, as well as being shocked I find the one-sided presentation extremely embarrasing. The fact is, in the UK, the media would never get away with the spin put out on this issue by our American cousins. People would just laugh then stop buying the newspaper or switch over to Big Brother.
The EU and the US both have very ambitious plans for a new Hydrogen economy. The Europeans plan to use renewables (wind power, hydro) to generate a significant portion of the electricity required to split Hydrogen from water, whereas the US (under GW) plans a massive expansion of coal and nuclear to do so. If the infrastructure is put in place, Hydrogen could be distributed and stored geographically, with the potential to feed fuel cells when needed, so no dependence on an electric grid being up 24/7. However, what troubles me is the EU model will reduce the use of fossil fuels, whereas the US one will generate more CO2 emissions and more nuclear waste.
One option is to send a rocket to boost HST into a much higher orbit. Effectively mothballed, it could be re-fitted or returned to Earth once a safer shuttle replacement is available. Of coarse this presupposes the shuttle replacement will have a cargo hold large enough to hold it.
It would be cool to visit HST in your local science museum in years to come, though.
If 1g hafnium > 50 kg TNT, wouldn't this make an excellent fuel for a spacecraft's propulsion system? How does the energy density stack up against conventional/current experimental rocket systems? As I understand it one of the difficulties in sending a probe to Pluto is not getting there, but carrying sufficient fuel to be able to slow and enter orbit once it arrives.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of dying from an asteroid impact are the same as dying in a plane crash. Luckily the public don't think like actuaries.
I work for the largest telecoms company in the UK. We have a large number of Indian programmers on and off shore. Having worked very closely with both groups for the last year I can honestly say:
1. The coders on shore fall into 3 categories - excellent, average and useless. The %ages are no different from UK programmers. However, I see distinct cultural differences that result in Indian programmers being less productive than their UK counter parts. One example is 3 Indian programmers huddled around the same workstation to solve a problem. No big deal, but the 3-to-1 ratio of coder-to-problem does raise some eyebrows. The second is far more serious. I've lost track of the number of times an Indian coder has hit a problem and not sought help/advice from the designer/architect. Days will pass before this comes to light. Now they do work long hours, typically 8am to 7pm but how productive is this given the 2 scenarios above?
2. Communication offshore is very difficult. The time difference doesn't help but this can be worked around. However, without face-to-face meetings, an issue that should take 10 minutes to resolve can take days of follow up calls before it is settled. Add to this the reluctance of the off shore team to acknowledge that they too have hit a problem but will not seek help and things start to go bad. I'm not exaggerating when I say I have had phone conversations where the Indian guy does not understand what is to being asked of him/her, but reassuring replies 'Yes'
So, I think this outsourcing exercise is interesting, but is bound to failure. I already over-hear private discussions between management where they acknowledge that the situation isn't working, yet they were extremely enthusiastic about it at the start.
Here in the UK, plumbers and builders can earn a lot more than programmers, since some bright spark decided 50% of all school leavers should go to University. Result? Lots of CS graduates, very few plumbers. I know who I would call at 3am when the water is pouring through the ceiling.
What? Are you mad?
How many of these men -- the very establishers and propogators of the existing patriarchal system
Er, last time I checked every man had a woman for a mother. Clearly 300 000 years of upbringing has nothing to do with the patriarchal system.
Because money isn't really that important to me
I admire your idealism, but keep your options open. In 5 years time who knows what you will think is important.
unless you figure a way to build the better mousetrap
It's called a cat and manufacturing is free
I read the article. Hmm... the Shuttle has engines which are 99% efficient. However, could the Shuttle lift a payload to Earth Orbit that could get 3 men plus golf clubs ;-) to the moon and back?
I envisaged a scenario where Saturn V would launch components of a Mars return vehicle to EO. Wasn't skylab assembled in this manner?
I was thinking... imagine if Saturn V technology (basically brute force coupled with reliabilty) was still available today. Add to this the latest software/hardware tech, and who knows where we could be by now. Mars, possibly.
Here's just one of the X-Prize teams using X-Plane as part of the design/testing process.
I hear X-plane runs on a desktop.
An apparently trivial bug in Mariner 1's computer guidance system resulted in a very short and eventful launch.
I've owned Macs for a while and I've dabbled with Applescript for maybe 10 minutes at a stretch every couple of years or so. Really, is it that useful? Strikes me it's great in theory, but like Speech recognition it doesn't deliver... How many times a day can you get a kick out of asking your Mac 'What time is it?'
link
Microsoft could stop writing dull and ugly software if they wanted to. But they don't and they won't. The world moves on, however many lawyers or lobbyists you hire.
I'd give them 2 years. That's fair.
How about the snake-like robot splits into two autonomous parts when it sees an advantage to do so. It gets to its (supposedly military) objective, decides it would be useful to recce two perimeters... off they go. They could always meet up and reconnect later.
... but no one these days thinks twice about filling up and driving to work.
Convertors are attached to either the gas line or the electricity line coming into the home, office or factory
If a decentralised model for storing energy is desirable, why not go the extra mile and advocate the generation of power locally using sustainable methods? Solar, wind, hydro etc aren't available 24 hours a day, but when they are, (sunny/windy day, whatever) the energy could be used to split water. Hydrogen could then be stored for use by your fuel cell when needed.
This would reduce dependence on the grid, and help reduce CO2 emissions.
Ehh... am I missing something here? I thought the key to this technology is to use renewable energy sources to split water into Hydrogen. We all know energy isn't free, but we can generate it using sustainable sources then store it in the form of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen can then be used to power a fuel cell when needed, with the only by-product being H2O. Please enlighten me.
Coal and nuclear power are very clean
Cleaner than using renewable sources to split water? Hydro can be damaging to the immediate environment, but I suspect less so than caused by an open caste coal mine. It is possible to exploit Hydro using natural sites without resorting to flooding thousands of square kilometres of land, which I wouldn't support either.
Personally I think wind power is great, but is far more expensive
Depends what you include (or exclude) from the balance sheet.
It would be educational to actually visit a nuclear plant
I would like to do so. The way I see it, why bother generating hazardous waste if there are alternatives. Ok, you might be able to convince me that it can be buried safely under a mountain and monitored daily (like for the next 100 thousand years), but I guess this is going to cost money, right?
Let's see... in 50 years we might develop practical fusion power in which case our problems are solved. I would then rather read about the story of an antiquated wind turbine technology in the history books than the waste products still buried underground somewhere.
As a Brit, I was shocked when in New York at the one sidedness of reports on Israel-Palestine.
I agree. However, as well as being shocked I find the one-sided presentation extremely embarrasing. The fact is, in the UK, the media would never get away with the spin put out on this issue by our American cousins. People would just laugh then stop buying the newspaper or switch over to Big Brother.
The EU and the US both have very ambitious plans for a new Hydrogen economy. The Europeans plan to use renewables (wind power, hydro) to generate a significant portion of the electricity required to split Hydrogen from water, whereas the US (under GW) plans a massive expansion of coal and nuclear to do so. If the infrastructure is put in place, Hydrogen could be distributed and stored geographically, with the potential to feed fuel cells when needed, so no dependence on an electric grid being up 24/7. However, what troubles me is the EU model will reduce the use of fossil fuels, whereas the US one will generate more CO2 emissions and more nuclear waste.
One option is to send a rocket to boost HST into a much higher orbit. Effectively mothballed, it could be re-fitted or returned to Earth once a safer shuttle replacement is available. Of coarse this presupposes the shuttle replacement will have a cargo hold large enough to hold it. It would be cool to visit HST in your local science museum in years to come, though.
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists the US was also very good at hiding WMD
If 1g hafnium > 50 kg TNT, wouldn't this make an excellent fuel for a spacecraft's propulsion system? How does the energy density stack up against conventional/current experimental rocket systems? As I understand it one of the difficulties in sending a probe to Pluto is not getting there, but carrying sufficient fuel to be able to slow and enter orbit once it arrives.
Could the Wall Crawler be used as a trusted companion to carry your packed lunch when climbing a particularly treacherous mountain face?