someone with her education who goes to make cheese... hey, that's really romantic. maybe she burnt out, maybe she has some social issue that prevents competent office interaction
Geophysics is a boom and bust thing. Unless you are in a small place in a niche with ongoing work there's a major chance of being laid off every few years, and having to do something else for a couple of years until exploration work picks up.
I've had younger people specifically tell me they hired a team like them that they could hang out with after work.
That's a danger sign. A monoculture can get way out of touch and try to sell the next big thing which turns out that only they and their friends are interested in. The most effective software house I worked for had people from a variety of ages and professions (aircraft tech, doctor, physicist, non-destructive testing etc) - "here's how we do it in industry X" sometimes provided a massive shortcut in doing it in industry Y.
I'm wondering if this is simply a case of people feeling weird having a subordinate 10-20 years younger than themselves or bringing a 45 year old onto a team with a bunch of twenty-somethings.
Managers are paid the dollars because they are supposed to be able to cope. What would the military be like if officers only had subordinates younger than them? Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? Well it's just as silly in other industries and IT only gets a free ride because it's an immature industry with a lot of immature management.
Other places are huge but don't fuck up so badly as to repeat the interview process four times. It shows a failure in the HR system and is a waste of Google's time and money as well as the applicant. Other places would have a file on her from the first interview and skip the parts of the process already done for the second, and so on.
If not computers, then various tools and testing machines dating back to the 1930s - if computers an Apple ][e with an analog/digital board used as a projectile velocity recorder for a gas gun used to compress metal powder into solid pellets. I think it is still in use.
so obviously transmitter power isn't entirely irrelevant
With the high gain antenna you need to listen a high transmitter power IS entirely irrelevant, since you are using that SAME HIGH GAIN ANTENNA to transmit and thus DON'T NEED MUCH POWER to do so. Are you sure you are not deliberately acting dumb time after time to wind me up?
You also wrote "they probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter", and that's obviously not how close they need to get
Obviously a visability thing - the "hope nobody sees them coming in" was an enormous clue. Now why don't you go back and read the entire (short) post this time and try again.
Turns out the crap audio is a compressed to the back of beyond stream as an online version of the broadcast from a local AM radio station - via some sort of incredibly crappy flash thing in a web browser that falls over every time a new flash update is available. It sort of works for voice. I doubt they play Neil Young, he's too recent for the elderly talkback audience and they would probably think he's some sort of Communist.
Perhaps you should try reading the part of my post starting with "without knowing what sort of methods are being used to solve the fluid dynamics problems" and you'll get some idea about what everyone else is discussing and why "just use a computer" is not an answer of any value.
AC look above to the line "but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter" - that tells the entire story. Your posts have done nothing other than show you didn't read (or understand maybe) that line. It appears that even when I dumb things down as far as using "larger antenna" instead of high gain it's still not dumbed down enough.
With respect AC that has nothing at all to do with the topic discussed. The size of the listening antenna is the thing that matters and wattage of the transmitter is not under the control of the receiver. I'm not sure how you manged to get things precisely backwards, but I'll assume it's an innocent mistake and not a joke.
The topic is drones listening in to transmitters and then connecting so they are limited by the weakest signal. Having a high powered transmitter on the drone is not going to make any difference at all since they are interested in what they get back.
Yes but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter. Of course if you have a few trees about then that's plenty of water to stop the signal dead so that drone does need something close to line of sight. They probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter and hope nobody sees them coming in.
Ridiculous snake oil aside, this is about propelling the reaction mass without adding much extra mass to do it. It's like how jet aircraft don't have to carry their own oxygen but can get it externally at working altitudes - this thing is apparently providing heat externally to give a kick to the reaction mass. The MASER exists now so I don't know why they are not using that to put their microwaves in the right place instead of throwing most of them away - which once again makes it look like yet another Forbes snake oil thing. You don't go to Forbes for science, you go there for bubble hype with fully artificial sweeteners.
I can't wait to see the first test flight when a flock of sea gulls intercepts the beam, explode into flames, and their burnt carcasses rain down on the beach. The subsequent loss of thrust and fiery crash or range safety termination should also make for interesting viewing on YouTube.
Around 1993 there was a proposal to turn an old coal fired power station owned by the org I was working for into a gas fired power station using the existing stack. The exhaust temperature would have been hot enough to incinerate any overflying bats from the adjacent colony of a few hundred thousand large bats (flying foxes). Having that happen at sunset in view of a very heavily populated area would not look good. That was only one of a very long list of problems that made it impractical (really needed a new building of a different shape instead of trying to rebuild the old one) but it's the one everyone involved remembers.
As of sometime around last year there are now MASERs which could be used instead of throwing most of the microwave energy in directions other than the one desired. Their snakeoil is out of date. The second snakeoil clue is we are getting this from Forbes and not Scientific American or New Scientist.
With respect, the analogy was a polite way to point out that your "get some servers" was missing the point of the question entirely, which was about what type of "servers", and without knowing what sort of methods are being used to solve the fluid dynamics problems then it's hard to work out what sort of machines - eg. a few fast cores, lots of machines with fast cores or lots of slow cores in machines with a lot of memory that it can get to a lot more quickly than lots of machines with fast cores. Simple enough yet? As an aside, the one and only time I ever saw an analog computer in use was to run a fluid dynamics simulation of the experimental rig next to it.
Unless the switching costs are trivial, streaming doesn't provide flexibility.
Yes - hence me hitting the job market with a degree in "Manufacturing" in the early 1990s and having trouble finding an engineering job for a while since I was neither a traditional Mech Eng or traditional metallurgist. Manufacturing was supposed to be the future - pity the future happened in China and Mexico instead and we stayed in the past.
Seems like mainly a way of avoiding the real question.
A good analogy of what is going on here is if the question was "why is the sky blue" and you have answered "dust" while the other has mentioned rayleigh scattering and a variety of other factors.
While "get some servers" is correct it's not exactly a useful answer is it? The above poster is right, for some stuff you want speed and for others you want as many cores as you can afford and don't give a shit about the speed, and without knowing what the submitter's software runs best on the choice is not clear.
Depends on a lot of things - if you have something massively parallel to do then core per $ is going to matter and speed is nowhere near as important. For other things speed is going to matter so you'll probably end up with a mix. Memory is bound to be something that will drive the design. Do you want a LOT of shared memory (which means a few huge machines) or can you parcel it out to nodes on a much cheaper cluster? A network is NEVER fast enough for some things when the alternative is a big pool of memory. If you are running commercial software your setup is going to be dictated by their licence conditions more than effectiveness at running their software - I went from an effective cluster to a small number of individual 64 core machines, with a slower speed, due to the licence changing to a per host model. A cluster full of the fastest eight core Xeons could get stuff done in half the time of some 64 core machines but at eight times the licence cost the difference in price with some software could pay for a few 64 core machines per year. GPUs are nice if your problem can actually use them, sadly they still don't have the memory for a lot of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Geophysics is a boom and bust thing. Unless you are in a small place in a niche with ongoing work there's a major chance of being laid off every few years, and having to do something else for a couple of years until exploration work picks up.
That's a danger sign. A monoculture can get way out of touch and try to sell the next big thing which turns out that only they and their friends are interested in. The most effective software house I worked for had people from a variety of ages and professions (aircraft tech, doctor, physicist, non-destructive testing etc) - "here's how we do it in industry X" sometimes provided a massive shortcut in doing it in industry Y.
Managers are paid the dollars because they are supposed to be able to cope. What would the military be like if officers only had subordinates younger than them? Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? Well it's just as silly in other industries and IT only gets a free ride because it's an immature industry with a lot of immature management.
Other places are huge but don't fuck up so badly as to repeat the interview process four times. It shows a failure in the HR system and is a waste of Google's time and money as well as the applicant. Other places would have a file on her from the first interview and skip the parts of the process already done for the second, and so on.
If not computers, then various tools and testing machines dating back to the 1930s - if computers an Apple ][e with an analog/digital board used as a projectile velocity recorder for a gas gun used to compress metal powder into solid pellets. I think it is still in use.
With the high gain antenna you need to listen a high transmitter power IS entirely irrelevant, since you are using that SAME HIGH GAIN ANTENNA to transmit and thus DON'T NEED MUCH POWER to do so.
Are you sure you are not deliberately acting dumb time after time to wind me up?
Obviously a visability thing - the "hope nobody sees them coming in" was an enormous clue.
Now why don't you go back and read the entire (short) post this time and try again.
Turns out the crap audio is a compressed to the back of beyond stream as an online version of the broadcast from a local AM radio station - via some sort of incredibly crappy flash thing in a web browser that falls over every time a new flash update is available. It sort of works for voice. I doubt they play Neil Young, he's too recent for the elderly talkback audience and they would probably think he's some sort of Communist.
Who are you quoting and what does it have to do with my post or even the topic?
Perhaps you should try reading the part of my post starting with "without knowing what sort of methods are being used to solve the fluid dynamics problems" and you'll get some idea about what everyone else is discussing and why "just use a computer" is not an answer of any value.
AC look above to the line "but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter" - that tells the entire story. Your posts have done nothing other than show you didn't read (or understand maybe) that line. It appears that even when I dumb things down as far as using "larger antenna" instead of high gain it's still not dumbed down enough.
Try wikipedia instead of the dictionary and look at what happened in 2012. We can start using those things for practical applications now.
Look at the wikipedia entry at the bit dated 2012.
With respect AC that has nothing at all to do with the topic discussed. The size of the listening antenna is the thing that matters and wattage of the transmitter is not under the control of the receiver.
I'm not sure how you manged to get things precisely backwards, but I'll assume it's an innocent mistake and not a joke.
The topic is drones listening in to transmitters and then connecting so they are limited by the weakest signal. Having a high powered transmitter on the drone is not going to make any difference at all since they are interested in what they get back.
Yes but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter. Of course if you have a few trees about then that's plenty of water to stop the signal dead so that drone does need something close to line of sight.
They probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter and hope nobody sees them coming in.
Ridiculous snake oil aside, this is about propelling the reaction mass without adding much extra mass to do it. It's like how jet aircraft don't have to carry their own oxygen but can get it externally at working altitudes - this thing is apparently providing heat externally to give a kick to the reaction mass.
The MASER exists now so I don't know why they are not using that to put their microwaves in the right place instead of throwing most of them away - which once again makes it look like yet another Forbes snake oil thing. You don't go to Forbes for science, you go there for bubble hype with fully artificial sweeteners.
I can't wait to see the first test flight when a flock of sea gulls intercepts the beam, explode into flames, and their burnt carcasses rain down on the beach. The subsequent loss of thrust and fiery crash or range safety termination should also make for interesting viewing on YouTube.
Around 1993 there was a proposal to turn an old coal fired power station owned by the org I was working for into a gas fired power station using the existing stack. The exhaust temperature would have been hot enough to incinerate any overflying bats from the adjacent colony of a few hundred thousand large bats (flying foxes). Having that happen at sunset in view of a very heavily populated area would not look good. That was only one of a very long list of problems that made it impractical (really needed a new building of a different shape instead of trying to rebuild the old one) but it's the one everyone involved remembers.
As of sometime around last year there are now MASERs which could be used instead of throwing most of the microwave energy in directions other than the one desired. Their snakeoil is out of date.
The second snakeoil clue is we are getting this from Forbes and not Scientific American or New Scientist.
Very good point - it's another good example of a barrier that has been shamelessly gamed.
With respect, the analogy was a polite way to point out that your "get some servers" was missing the point of the question entirely, which was about what type of "servers", and without knowing what sort of methods are being used to solve the fluid dynamics problems then it's hard to work out what sort of machines - eg. a few fast cores, lots of machines with fast cores or lots of slow cores in machines with a lot of memory that it can get to a lot more quickly than lots of machines with fast cores. Simple enough yet?
As an aside, the one and only time I ever saw an analog computer in use was to run a fluid dynamics simulation of the experimental rig next to it.
Unless the switching costs are trivial, streaming doesn't provide flexibility.
Yes - hence me hitting the job market with a degree in "Manufacturing" in the early 1990s and having trouble finding an engineering job for a while since I was neither a traditional Mech Eng or traditional metallurgist. Manufacturing was supposed to be the future - pity the future happened in China and Mexico instead and we stayed in the past.
A good analogy of what is going on here is if the question was "why is the sky blue" and you have answered "dust" while the other has mentioned rayleigh scattering and a variety of other factors.
While "get some servers" is correct it's not exactly a useful answer is it? The above poster is right, for some stuff you want speed and for others you want as many cores as you can afford and don't give a shit about the speed, and without knowing what the submitter's software runs best on the choice is not clear.
Depends on a lot of things - if you have something massively parallel to do then core per $ is going to matter and speed is nowhere near as important. For other things speed is going to matter so you'll probably end up with a mix.
Memory is bound to be something that will drive the design. Do you want a LOT of shared memory (which means a few huge machines) or can you parcel it out to nodes on a much cheaper cluster? A network is NEVER fast enough for some things when the alternative is a big pool of memory.
If you are running commercial software your setup is going to be dictated by their licence conditions more than effectiveness at running their software - I went from an effective cluster to a small number of individual 64 core machines, with a slower speed, due to the licence changing to a per host model. A cluster full of the fastest eight core Xeons could get stuff done in half the time of some 64 core machines but at eight times the licence cost the difference in price with some software could pay for a few 64 core machines per year.
GPUs are nice if your problem can actually use them, sadly they still don't have the memory for a lot of things.
They have figured out that the middlemen who make a lot out of the arrangement are significant political donors :(