The Heavy can lift 53,000kg into LOW, the Shuttle can only lift 24,400 kg. Also, unlike the Shuttle you can *gasp* modify the Heavy if you have oversize cargo.
So fail #1.
But lower orbit capabilities (200km vs 960km for the shuttle).
The Heavy can send cargo to GTO so stop lying. Over six times as much cargo in fact mass wise.
So fail #2.
But without the ability to bring back cargo (the shuttle could retrieve payload from space for return to Earth).
So? The Shuttle pretty much never does that anyway and no one cars about it. Cheaper to send up a set of collapsible reentry covers or something if you really got to get something back down.
So fail #3
But with lest liftoff thrust (17MN vs 30MN).
It's called efficiency, twice the mass for half the thrust, you brain dead suv driving redneck. More efficiency makes something better not worse
So fail #4.
And it also has no human capabilities as of yet (it's designed to be human rated, but there's no crew module, which would take quite a while to design and build).
Someone else already called you out on this.
So fail #5.
So kill it, it must die! But we won't have something to take the place of it anytime soon...
We Soyuz which despite the Russians best incompetence hasn't killed anyone in three decades and costs less. Not to mention, see last point.
So fail #6.
I never knew someone could pack that much concentrated fail into a single post, congratulations. You're the Space Shuttle of slashdot posters.
By the way, in this city, the crosswalks have noise makers for blind or visually impaired people, and you aren't allowed to cross against the light, even if you can't see it. So I guess the biggest threat from a totally silent car would be if they didn't watch where they were going when a blind person tried to cross the street illegally against the light.
First time I've heard of a place where you can't make right turns on a green light.
Since you know both software and hardware you should be the one telling people what to do and not the one doing it yourself. Rarely do you need one guy to build a whole system but you often need one guy to lead a team making a whole system. Either that or you should be aiming for companies that do need one guy to do everything, generally startups.
It also seems you interview skills are lacking which doesn't help your case. If you cannot prove that you can do the job then that's your problem. You should have enough experience with interviews to know better than that. Show the insights you've gained throughout life. Ask pertinent questions that a 20 year old wouldn't. Talk about what you know, about different ways to solve a problem, about the pros/cons of different approaches and so on.
you will be in this position in 20 or 30 years. karma is a bitch, remember that. be kind now.
No I won't, I'm in my mid 20s and I've already judged that management is what I need to aim for. I've judged that the alternative offers low chances of advancement in the future for me. Point being that unlike you I am constantly trying to predict and position where I'll generally be in 20 or 30 years.
If you build software without understanding the business side of things then you don't build very good software. Or you need someone to babysit you and feed you very detailed requirements.
One issue is the USB memory stick issue. It has become a major security hole mainly because Windows allows an autorun when a USB stick is plugged in ( that is a stupid decision by Microsoft). Even if there is a "do you want to run this" prompt too many users just automatically click yes. Many IT departments have outlawed them because they cause security issues.
Congratulations on showing why everyone hates IT: because they're a bunch of lazy idiots.
Any decent IT department can kill autorun on every single machine with a few group policy changes. If yours can't then they have utterly failed already. Everything else is just dressing on the shit cake.
Didn't sound like it in your post. All you did was complain. About the hours. About the lack of weekends. About the late night support calls. About the lack of overtime. Complain, complain, complain.
Bitter and angry is what I got out of your post. I suspect most people would have pegged it similarly.
All that said, why don't you make me that latte I ordered and shut the fuck up?
Sorry but I'm too busy enjoying all the free time I have. Gotta love 40 hour work weeks. Same for not dying at 50 from a stroke.
As for my job, let's just say that I don't need to write a paragraph long justification about it to some guy online.
You've heard of hard work, I assume?
Work smart, not hard is my motto. So far neither I nor anyone I've worked with or for is complaining. And I've made my employers a lot of money.
I also point out (since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit) that rather than complaining, I asked, how many hours a day your fellow jackass works as a comparison.
And I merely replied that all this shows is that IT is filled with idiots. Most everyone else realizes that life is too short to be a corporate slave 24/7 unless you're getting paid Wall Street wages.
Since you clearly didn't understand the implications of what I wrote, I'll dumb it down for you -- I contrasted my own current experience with the mindless garbage spewed by Mr. Dumbass. Get it now, brainless one?
You wrote it in about the most complaining, bitter sounding and incoherent manner possible. Thanks for explaining it in detail, maybe you should have been clearer in your message the first time, okay?
In any case, rather than ignore your half-witted attempt to critique my employment choices, I'll say again, this time to you: Fuck you jerk!
Again, all that anger. Yet you wonder why I assumed you were miserable.
That you're too stupid to find a better job is no one's fault but your own. The company is fucking you up the ass like a cheap whore and all you're doing is asking them to shove it in deeper. They know you'll put up with anything they do to you without even a peep and they've wringing you for all you're worth. Then when you finally snap and hang yourself they'll find another moron to fill your space.
So stop blaming everyone else and instead actually get rid of what's making you miserable. Stop being a rug for every single person who wants to step on you. Grow a damn spine already.
I suspect that Adobe could make a lot more than they do
God damn you're right, I'm sure all those people at Adobe who have spent millions and years analyzing how to best price software have never ever considered this. You must be a genius among men.
[/sarcasm]
First of all, it's more profitable for them to just release a stripped down version (ie: Photoshop Elements) to cover the lower end market. That way they still get to sell the full version for $700.
Second of all, price==quality for most people. Studies show it. So they'd in fact lose current customers if they lowered their price.
You're an idiot who apparently has some very limited real life experience.
I talked with a company a week back who does various machine learning/data analysis consulting for companies. They've got 100+ PhDs and without one you're not getting hired.
Finance companies, which pay $$$$$, want a PhD if you're doing any sort of financial analysis work for them.
Big tech companies love PhDs and will pay for them. If you're doing science at such a company (ie: algorithmic product improvements, machine learning, etc.) then a PhD is essentially required.
Bio companies will want PhDs to design their various bio-informatics systems and algorithms.
Basically if you want to do anything scientific for a company (algorithms, machine learning, statistics, etc.) and not be someone's monkey helper then you better well have a PhD. Trust me, pain in the ass to not have a PhD and like doing that sort of work.
My Ivy League diploma is useful on it's own irrespective of the networking or education. It's much easier to project "magnificent reliable genius" when you have one.
You live in a world of delusions, that's all I can say. Plus tech has been around for a long time. Microsoft was the Google of it's day.
I've known more than one person who got jobs at hot startups due to networking. They were vouched for which makes the perceived hiring risk much lower. I know Google considers internal referrals more highly than random outside applications (and you can have your contacts check up on it!). More generally, you do much better sending your resume to a specific person (especially if they are a VP, for example) instead of the black hole of HR.
So I suspect this particular aspect of a fancy school with a fancy name isn't going to be very convincing here, where most of us grew up in and entered the industry during the boom.
So Google doesn't have a hilariously large percentage of people with "Stanford" somewhere in their education record? Versus, for example, San Jose State?
Trust me, all the large tech companies go for top schools. Especially for positions that are more CS than programming.
Having taken courses from quiet a few different schools I can only assume you never have done such.
Community college standards are non-existent with a curriculum catering to students who shouldn't have ever graduated high school and a bureaucracy that doesn't care (skip pre-reqs you can do in your sleep? Hahahaha). So you learn basically nothing in five times as much time as a good university would spend on that material. At my top university they didn't teach you programming languages after the basic classes, if a class needed Python then you better learn it by the time the first assignment is due.
Let me put it this way, at the local third tier school I was top of the class. In 8th grade. Without trying. At the university I worked harder and never did that well.
I remember talking with a VP of programming about 10 years ago, wondering why someone with a masters in marine biology would want to be a computer programer. He didn't even interview the kid. But then again, the VP had his PhD in neural networks, and was working for a financial company and was fired after two years because he had terrible people skills. A lot of good his degree did him, he was one of the worst managers I'd ever seen. The company I worked with hired a financial wizard from some elite school with a very impressive background, and just fired him 6 months ago for the his lack of people skills and terrible work ethic.
Any of this matters how exactly? How would either of these do anywhere close to as well by going to a community college? It seems they got quiet a bit of mileage out of their elite educations. Are you jealous? In fact your two examples very much show just how important going to such schools can be and how it can let you succeed despite otherwise crippling flaws.
Community colleges cater to essentially idiots. You know how every smart kids complained about having to deal with idiots and idiot teachers in High School? Multiply that by ten fold. Then add five layers of bureaucracy.
There's also no comparison between CS classes at a top university and at a community college. What the community college spends a year on, the university does in a few weeks. Also, good luck ever skipping a worthless unnecessary pre-req at a community college (they lose money that way). My university only cared if I thought I could handle the class and they offered various accelerated classes to fill in the gap.
Not that any of this matters too much, the fastest way to success is connections and networking. Who you know and not what you know.
As for graduate school. As someone else mentioned, what undergrad school you went to matters and what you learned there matters. You think Stanford will take you or the kid who was taking graduate AI classes his junior year while working on a DARPA challenge vehicle? You know how NSF Fellowships are decided? They first take all the applications and divide them into two pile, one for top schools and one for everything else.
You have no idea what you're talking about, please shut up before you fuck over some kid's life.
State schools can cost more than top private schools.
Top private schools provide absurdly good financial aid packages, we're talking free ride if a kid's parent's make under $100k. With billions in endowments you can do that. State schools are increasing tuition every year as education funding get's cut.
Christ, toy're an idiot. No it doesn't work as well as the status quo for among other reasons:
- Inaccuracy of gps, both in general and due to obstacles
- Excessive cost.
- Privacy issues
- Problems in system making transmission unreliable (like like of maintenance over time)
- Interference with wifi signals making receiving signal unreliable
- No easy to use sound system can transmit the amount of information the human ear can pick up just as quickly (speed of vehicle, direction, location, etc.)
Add a transmitter to the handheld device and the cars (not just the drivers) can now be themselves aware of the pedestrian, which is much better than now.
Which proves to me that you've never lived much less driven or walked in anything I'd call a city. That's the only explanation I can think for anyone thinking that knowing there's a pedestrian somewhere is of any value. I don't give a rats ass if there's a pedestrian on the sidewalk or not. There is always one where I live. I care if they're about to cross the street or not. Not to mention that with gps, you wouldn't know if a pedestrian is on the sidewalk or in the middle of the street.
If they know they need to look in ram then your house probably has more bugs in it than an inner city motel. Including a half dozen on your computer of one kind or another. And probably inside your toilet.
So in the end they don't even need to look in ram since they know everything already.
There is also another point here, which is that using iron supplements to cure or prevent iron deficiency would be very easy to clinically test. The reason the FDA hasn't approved of it as a drug is almost certainly because the studies have been done, and the supplement was not shown to be effective.
Proper clinical trials are very very expensive. And iron supplements cannot be patented. So I doubt very much anyone bothered to run a set of trials that'd meet FDA requirements.
Go to town, put in some haptic feedback so they can tell directions and speeds as well (heck, this might even be safer than listening for normal engines...)
So you want every car to have a gps and compass tracking system built in? Maybe have them all send this information in real time to some central government database? Maybe do the same for all pedestrians to warn them of possible oncoming cars?
And it'd convey this information on every car on the road to the wearer instantly by what magical means?
Human ears are very complex instruments and trying to mimic their abilities would require immense effort and cost.
Now tell me instantly which direction the car is coming from, how quickly and how far away it is. For every car. Instantly, no delay is allowed. Including cars turning, pulling out of parking spaces, idling and so on.
And how would that magically happen? Just so your argument isn't horrendously flawed? Go live in reality for once and not whatever fantasy world you inhabit.
Education is never unbiased, you'll just have massive propaganda and disinformation campaigns from random sides. Look at California, the Mormon Church managed to convince half the population that gay marriage was a bad thing.
As for equality, see my first statement. If you make a suggestion it has to apply to the world as it is and not to some magical future world that may be. Communism tried that approach, a lot of people died very unpleasant deaths. Not a majority but fifty years of trying to eradication that view hasn't managed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Utter fail, read up before spouting BS next time.
But smaller cargo dimensions
The Heavy can lift 53,000kg into LOW, the Shuttle can only lift 24,400 kg. Also, unlike the Shuttle you can *gasp* modify the Heavy if you have oversize cargo.
So fail #1.
But lower orbit capabilities (200km vs 960km for the shuttle).
The Heavy can send cargo to GTO so stop lying. Over six times as much cargo in fact mass wise.
So fail #2.
But without the ability to bring back cargo (the shuttle could retrieve payload from space for return to Earth).
So? The Shuttle pretty much never does that anyway and no one cars about it. Cheaper to send up a set of collapsible reentry covers or something if you really got to get something back down.
So fail #3
But with lest liftoff thrust (17MN vs 30MN).
It's called efficiency, twice the mass for half the thrust, you brain dead suv driving redneck. More efficiency makes something better not worse
So fail #4.
And it also has no human capabilities as of yet (it's designed to be human rated, but there's no crew module, which would take quite a while to design and build).
Someone else already called you out on this.
So fail #5.
So kill it, it must die! But we won't have something to take the place of it anytime soon...
We Soyuz which despite the Russians best incompetence hasn't killed anyone in three decades and costs less. Not to mention, see last point.
So fail #6.
I never knew someone could pack that much concentrated fail into a single post, congratulations. You're the Space Shuttle of slashdot posters.
New York City kills your argument. So does San Francisco for that matter.
By the way, in this city, the crosswalks have noise makers for blind or visually impaired people, and you aren't allowed to cross against the light, even if you can't see it. So I guess the biggest threat from a totally silent car would be if they didn't watch where they were going when a blind person tried to cross the street illegally against the light.
First time I've heard of a place where you can't make right turns on a green light.
BP is not ARCO's child. It is ARCO.
Adapt or die, that's life in a nutshell.
Since you know both software and hardware you should be the one telling people what to do and not the one doing it yourself. Rarely do you need one guy to build a whole system but you often need one guy to lead a team making a whole system. Either that or you should be aiming for companies that do need one guy to do everything, generally startups.
It also seems you interview skills are lacking which doesn't help your case. If you cannot prove that you can do the job then that's your problem. You should have enough experience with interviews to know better than that. Show the insights you've gained throughout life. Ask pertinent questions that a 20 year old wouldn't. Talk about what you know, about different ways to solve a problem, about the pros/cons of different approaches and so on.
you will be in this position in 20 or 30 years. karma is a bitch, remember that. be kind now.
No I won't, I'm in my mid 20s and I've already judged that management is what I need to aim for. I've judged that the alternative offers low chances of advancement in the future for me. Point being that unlike you I am constantly trying to predict and position where I'll generally be in 20 or 30 years.
If you build software without understanding the business side of things then you don't build very good software. Or you need someone to babysit you and feed you very detailed requirements.
One issue is the USB memory stick issue. It has become a major security hole mainly because Windows allows an autorun when a USB stick is plugged in ( that is a stupid decision by Microsoft). Even if there is a "do you want to run this" prompt too many users just automatically click yes. Many IT departments have outlawed them because they cause security issues.
Congratulations on showing why everyone hates IT: because they're a bunch of lazy idiots.
Any decent IT department can kill autorun on every single machine with a few group policy changes. If yours can't then they have utterly failed already. Everything else is just dressing on the shit cake.
First of all, I *like* my job.
Didn't sound like it in your post. All you did was complain. About the hours. About the lack of weekends. About the late night support calls. About the lack of overtime. Complain, complain, complain.
Bitter and angry is what I got out of your post. I suspect most people would have pegged it similarly.
All that said, why don't you make me that latte I ordered and shut the fuck up?
Sorry but I'm too busy enjoying all the free time I have. Gotta love 40 hour work weeks. Same for not dying at 50 from a stroke.
As for my job, let's just say that I don't need to write a paragraph long justification about it to some guy online.
You've heard of hard work, I assume?
Work smart, not hard is my motto. So far neither I nor anyone I've worked with or for is complaining. And I've made my employers a lot of money.
I also point out (since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit) that rather than complaining, I asked, how many hours a day your fellow jackass works as a comparison.
And I merely replied that all this shows is that IT is filled with idiots. Most everyone else realizes that life is too short to be a corporate slave 24/7 unless you're getting paid Wall Street wages.
Since you clearly didn't understand the implications of what I wrote, I'll dumb it down for you -- I contrasted my own current experience with the mindless garbage spewed by Mr. Dumbass. Get it now, brainless one?
You wrote it in about the most complaining, bitter sounding and incoherent manner possible. Thanks for explaining it in detail, maybe you should have been clearer in your message the first time, okay?
In any case, rather than ignore your half-witted attempt to critique my employment choices, I'll say again, this time to you: Fuck you jerk!
Again, all that anger. Yet you wonder why I assumed you were miserable.
That you're too stupid to find a better job is no one's fault but your own. The company is fucking you up the ass like a cheap whore and all you're doing is asking them to shove it in deeper. They know you'll put up with anything they do to you without even a peep and they've wringing you for all you're worth. Then when you finally snap and hang yourself they'll find another moron to fill your space.
So stop blaming everyone else and instead actually get rid of what's making you miserable. Stop being a rug for every single person who wants to step on you. Grow a damn spine already.
I suspect that Adobe could make a lot more than they do
God damn you're right, I'm sure all those people at Adobe who have spent millions and years analyzing how to best price software have never ever considered this. You must be a genius among men.
[/sarcasm]
First of all, it's more profitable for them to just release a stripped down version (ie: Photoshop Elements) to cover the lower end market. That way they still get to sell the full version for $700.
Second of all, price==quality for most people. Studies show it. So they'd in fact lose current customers if they lowered their price.
You're an idiot who apparently has some very limited real life experience.
I talked with a company a week back who does various machine learning/data analysis consulting for companies. They've got 100+ PhDs and without one you're not getting hired.
Finance companies, which pay $$$$$, want a PhD if you're doing any sort of financial analysis work for them.
Big tech companies love PhDs and will pay for them. If you're doing science at such a company (ie: algorithmic product improvements, machine learning, etc.) then a PhD is essentially required.
Bio companies will want PhDs to design their various bio-informatics systems and algorithms.
Basically if you want to do anything scientific for a company (algorithms, machine learning, statistics, etc.) and not be someone's monkey helper then you better well have a PhD. Trust me, pain in the ass to not have a PhD and like doing that sort of work.
The same reason being a secretary requires having a Bachelors Degree, degree requirement inflation.
Yes and no,
My Ivy League diploma is useful on it's own irrespective of the networking or education. It's much easier to project "magnificent reliable genius" when you have one.
You live in a world of delusions, that's all I can say. Plus tech has been around for a long time. Microsoft was the Google of it's day.
I've known more than one person who got jobs at hot startups due to networking. They were vouched for which makes the perceived hiring risk much lower. I know Google considers internal referrals more highly than random outside applications (and you can have your contacts check up on it!). More generally, you do much better sending your resume to a specific person (especially if they are a VP, for example) instead of the black hole of HR.
So I suspect this particular aspect of a fancy school with a fancy name isn't going to be very convincing here, where most of us grew up in and entered the industry during the boom.
So Google doesn't have a hilariously large percentage of people with "Stanford" somewhere in their education record? Versus, for example, San Jose State?
Trust me, all the large tech companies go for top schools. Especially for positions that are more CS than programming.
Having taken courses from quiet a few different schools I can only assume you never have done such.
Community college standards are non-existent with a curriculum catering to students who shouldn't have ever graduated high school and a bureaucracy that doesn't care (skip pre-reqs you can do in your sleep? Hahahaha). So you learn basically nothing in five times as much time as a good university would spend on that material. At my top university they didn't teach you programming languages after the basic classes, if a class needed Python then you better learn it by the time the first assignment is due.
Let me put it this way, at the local third tier school I was top of the class. In 8th grade. Without trying. At the university I worked harder and never did that well.
I remember talking with a VP of programming about 10 years ago, wondering why someone with a masters in marine biology would want to be a computer programer. He didn't even interview the kid. But then again, the VP had his PhD in neural networks, and was working for a financial company and was fired after two years because he had terrible people skills. A lot of good his degree did him, he was one of the worst managers I'd ever seen. The company I worked with hired a financial wizard from some elite school with a very impressive background, and just fired him 6 months ago for the his lack of people skills and terrible work ethic.
Any of this matters how exactly? How would either of these do anywhere close to as well by going to a community college? It seems they got quiet a bit of mileage out of their elite educations. Are you jealous? In fact your two examples very much show just how important going to such schools can be and how it can let you succeed despite otherwise crippling flaws.
Community colleges cater to essentially idiots. You know how every smart kids complained about having to deal with idiots and idiot teachers in High School? Multiply that by ten fold. Then add five layers of bureaucracy.
There's also no comparison between CS classes at a top university and at a community college. What the community college spends a year on, the university does in a few weeks. Also, good luck ever skipping a worthless unnecessary pre-req at a community college (they lose money that way). My university only cared if I thought I could handle the class and they offered various accelerated classes to fill in the gap.
Not that any of this matters too much, the fastest way to success is connections and networking. Who you know and not what you know.
As for graduate school. As someone else mentioned, what undergrad school you went to matters and what you learned there matters. You think Stanford will take you or the kid who was taking graduate AI classes his junior year while working on a DARPA challenge vehicle? You know how NSF Fellowships are decided? They first take all the applications and divide them into two pile, one for top schools and one for everything else.
You have no idea what you're talking about, please shut up before you fuck over some kid's life.
State schools can cost more than top private schools.
Top private schools provide absurdly good financial aid packages, we're talking free ride if a kid's parent's make under $100k. With billions in endowments you can do that. State schools are increasing tuition every year as education funding get's cut.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal force or standing. The United States Constitution does.
Of course, even the rights granted in the constitution can be restricted for a variety of reasons.
Christ, toy're an idiot. No it doesn't work as well as the status quo for among other reasons:
- Inaccuracy of gps, both in general and due to obstacles
- Excessive cost.
- Privacy issues
- Problems in system making transmission unreliable (like like of maintenance over time)
- Interference with wifi signals making receiving signal unreliable
- No easy to use sound system can transmit the amount of information the human ear can pick up just as quickly (speed of vehicle, direction, location, etc.)
Add a transmitter to the handheld device and the cars (not just the drivers) can now be themselves aware of the pedestrian, which is much better than now.
Which proves to me that you've never lived much less driven or walked in anything I'd call a city. That's the only explanation I can think for anyone thinking that knowing there's a pedestrian somewhere is of any value. I don't give a rats ass if there's a pedestrian on the sidewalk or not. There is always one where I live. I care if they're about to cross the street or not. Not to mention that with gps, you wouldn't know if a pedestrian is on the sidewalk or in the middle of the street.
Then you get charged with murder due to setting up such an inherently unsafe system. Enjoy prison.
If they know they need to look in ram then your house probably has more bugs in it than an inner city motel. Including a half dozen on your computer of one kind or another. And probably inside your toilet.
So in the end they don't even need to look in ram since they know everything already.
There is also another point here, which is that using iron supplements to cure or prevent iron deficiency would be very easy to clinically test. The reason the FDA hasn't approved of it as a drug is almost certainly because the studies have been done, and the supplement was not shown to be effective.
Proper clinical trials are very very expensive. And iron supplements cannot be patented. So I doubt very much anyone bothered to run a set of trials that'd meet FDA requirements.
Go to town, put in some haptic feedback so they can tell directions and speeds as well (heck, this might even be safer than listening for normal engines...)
So you want every car to have a gps and compass tracking system built in? Maybe have them all send this information in real time to some central government database? Maybe do the same for all pedestrians to warn them of possible oncoming cars?
And it'd convey this information on every car on the road to the wearer instantly by what magical means?
Human ears are very complex instruments and trying to mimic their abilities would require immense effort and cost.
Now tell me instantly which direction the car is coming from, how quickly and how far away it is. For every car. Instantly, no delay is allowed. Including cars turning, pulling out of parking spaces, idling and so on.
And how would that magically happen? Just so your argument isn't horrendously flawed? Go live in reality for once and not whatever fantasy world you inhabit.
Education is never unbiased, you'll just have massive propaganda and disinformation campaigns from random sides. Look at California, the Mormon Church managed to convince half the population that gay marriage was a bad thing.
As for equality, see my first statement. If you make a suggestion it has to apply to the world as it is and not to some magical future world that may be. Communism tried that approach, a lot of people died very unpleasant deaths. Not a majority but fifty years of trying to eradication that view hasn't managed it.