In your world of "opportunity for everyone" maybe. In the real world shit happens in such way that it may be practically impossible to get a solution. If the whole economy goes through the tubes, how can you guarantee yourself survival?
If you didn't have had this chance, you are pretty lucky, I had to pass by the downfall of USSR. It was a TREMENDOUS experience. And not the first and last one. I just refer it because it was a situation where, chances to find work were pretty grim.
And you might get hit by a car and end up with half your brain as little more than slush. That's not the situation we were talking about so I don't see why you're bringing it up. Losing your job and recessions are on the other hand common occurrences that any reasonable person should protect themselves against. I can, for example, live comfortably for two years on my current savings alone (ie: no job, no income, etc.) and I only entered the job market three or so years ago (considerably more if I cut down my expenses to the bones). Granted I personally do have plans made in case the whole country I'm in implodes and they generally boil down to very quickly going somewhere else. That is coincidentally the same strategy my parents used when the USSR was imploding around them.
Now, guys like the one I described, don't have the experience of running through wars and major crisis. They are good guys, who hope to have a life without serious bumps. This bump going now is pretty bad for such people and don't tell me a anything about opportunities.
Assuming life has no bumps is foolish and like I said I have no sympathy for fools.
You didn't even think on what market, country, region or field I or this guy are in. So, drop a bit your shell, be it "conservative" or "liberal", and think for a little that the world is not everywhere the same.
So why don't you tell me? Or is your answer to any criticism to blindly yell "you don't know anything about the situation" without explaining? Why even bother posting something if your situation is so out of the ordinary it doesn't apply to anyone else?
And one note: You claim sysadmins have no excuse for considerable savings. That's consumerism, pal. That's management going nuts, not knowing what they are spending on. Not personally nor at company level. If you don't know how to manage your OWN money, how will you manage the company's money?
...frankly I have almost no idea what you just said, it's like you dumped some sentences through a meat grinder and posted them. How the fuck is that related to me saying that sysadmins have no excuse for not having a substation savings? I don't give a damn about who else fails at basic finance but simply that if you are such a person then whatever happens as a result is your fault.
I don't get just a salary, I manage budgets and personnel. If I would hear someone claiming such thing as you did here, I wouldn't even take the effort to see his CV. And don't tell me about that "IT ain't cheap". Yes I know it is not cheap. But it shall be rational. Specially, when you have companies burning millions of dollars of debt and you are one of the guys tasked to kick off these companies out of the hole they are in. So when I say - I will not look at such CV, I am pretty sure of what I am talking about.
Unfortunately, I know the reality. Yes, you are among the majority.
You know how many sysadmin CVs I refused to look at? It is not "opportunities". It's a very grim picture that makes me feel horrible.
And yet again I've got no bloody clue as to what point you're trying to make.
Frankly if losing your job means you're homeless then that's your fault. Shit happens in life and if you're so unprepared that one little bump sends you to the bottom then I have no sympathy for you. Sysadmins get paid well enough that there is no excuse for almost all of them to have considerable savings.
One could argue that no other form of communism can exist in practice and so far no large scale counter-example exist. Soviet communism is what happens when communism runs up against human greed and so far no one has found a way to remove human greed.
Have you read ANY of the stories on proposed security measures in the last five years? Only reason they don't run lie detectors on everyone is because it'd take too much time.
How many people live in your country? How many have cameras? How many routinely take photos? How many post those photos online?
So yes, you ARE asking for all public photography to be banned since it is a mass-scale imaging operation already. It's simply that no one has yet taken the trouble to link all of them together at the level of google street view but it's simply a matter of time.
If EMC's intent was STRICTLY to be sure trade secrets are not divulged, then why didn't they just ask him to sign an agreement for that?
Because no one would ever dream of lying and breaking a contract that is near impossible to enforce? Or do you have some magic ability that would let EMC know that someone divulged trade secrets and prove in court that a particular ex-employer did so?
First of all because atmospheric drag slows things down and robs them of energy. Going to a higher orbit requires increasing velocity and adding energy. In other words, the laws of physics prevent your scheme from working.
There are other reasons I can think of but I think this one is enough.
I think that any mass in orbit is far more valuable there than back on earth. It still has all the energy the owner has paid for by launching it in the first place, and at ~$1000 per kg in LEO that is nothing to sneeze at.
There's already plenty of mass in space, we can cart up rocks from the moon for a pittance if we wanted to. The problem is that all that mass is useless since the cost of manufacturing things in space would be insane.
I think the solar sails should be used to cart the stuff into a higher orbit where the parts can be stored with less effort.
They aren't putting solar sails on these things in case you haven't realized.
So you want to spend mass to send up complex (and fragile likely) solar sails with complex guidance systems? Solar sails which, asfaik, have never been shown to actually work yet and that are not used by any existing system for orbit maintenance yet? Systems that are likely to fail, by pure chance, at some point and create more hard to track junk in non-decaying orbits than they could possibly prevent?
The problem is that whatever we sent up is not built for reusability it would seem.
There's a reason for that, look at the Hubble and how much it costs to repair it even though it was designed to be repaired.
Without a decent plan to produce something from space junk I guess nobody is going to worry about where the hardware in orbit goes beyond its eol, it has paid for the launch costs already why worry about much costlier manufacturing in orbit. Then it is also safer to just drop the stuff. This proposal is more of the same shortsighted thinking however. We will continuously put stuff into orbit, why let it decay back to earth if there could be a continuous reuse of material in orbit? Something goes up nothing comes down!
The space junk problem could finally lead to better planning for the future. Somebody could come up with an in orbit manufacturing and launch facility which buys the energy + material value of your satellite/booster. Its main bussiness would be in orbit manfacturing and launch of hardware with a certain orbit.
I would venture a guess and say that we already have the technology to make this work today. So it is time to check whether this could become a viable business model
Manufacturing capabilities in space would probably require sending up ten to a hundred times more mass than we've done up to this point in total. You're underestimating just how complex space craft are and how much industry is behind them. Given that it's inefficient to bother saving the crap since by the time it's useful it'll be an insignificant fraction of all the stuff in space.
Probably the only way that manufacturing things in space would be viable is if launch costs went down significantly at some point (be it cheaper launch mechanisms or cheaper sources of raw materials). In that case the value of that material in space is even less since it doesn't matter if it cost $2000/lb but only that it costs $20/lb then.
Moving things in space and keeping them from crashing into the atmosphere requires energy. Energy means fuel and fuel means you need to pay to send it up. Docking objects in space requires complex electronics which means even more mass to send up.
Recycling requires a highly advanced and complex industrial base which doesn't exist in space. If it did then you wouldn't need the junk since you can mine your own raw materials.
The difference is that hydrogen will cost twice as much per mile compared to pure electricity. Twice as much energy put in originally, twice as much fossil fuels used, twice as much pollution and so on.
WW2 was a bad idea just like any other war. That the alternative was an even worse idea doesn't change the fact that neither of the two options was inherently good.
No you don't, you simply need to know if there is a floppy or not. You get this by checking using a different less efficient method (spin up) for the presence of a floppy.
Lawyers don't get paid a lot, some lawyers get paid a lot. Just passing the bar exam gives you more or less nothing.
You have to go to a good school, rank highly at that school, do well on the bar exam, join a well known law firm, work your backside off for 80 hours a week and so on.
Bittorrent? I pulled 40+gb last month by watching hulu, netflix and other online content (it's like 1-2gb/hour or so). Granted, another 30gb came from perfectly legal bittorrents for videos I didn't feel like streaming at the time.
This is basically time warner deciding that they want to force you to buy their cable tv package.
You basically get paid for lying around doing nothing while others take care of your needs. For many less fortunate people that's probably a massive improvement from their day to day lives. No need to worry about food, shelter, bills, crappy job and so on.
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. I was simply saying that quite a bit of what you can learn in a masters program doesn't stop mattering in five years. Either it'll be around for some time or the new stuff will be based on what you learn (thus making it a lot easier to pick up). It can essentially provide you with better fundamentals and extend them to advanced topics.
As for research, I did it as an undergrad and I simply didn't consider it a good use of my time as a grad student since I had no intention of going into academia. I lacked the depth to do much more than I'd do as a final project for half my classes so it seemed pointless.
Most of the things I learned in grad school were invented before I was born. Most of the rest were simply re-hashes of old methods to new problems or to better hardware.
If you're taking classes that have a half-life of five years then you're doing it wrong or you're going to a degree mill college. The point of college is not to teach you crap (ie: programming languages, tools, etc.) that you can learn in two hours on your free time.
The difference, as someone else also pointed out, is that in the corporate you can shop around till you find a sane company. Interviews are as much about you learning of your potential employers as it is about them learning about you.
Also, any intelligent worker knows to get everything in writing and to save the paper trail for future usage. If your manager tells you to do something verbally then the first thing you do is send an email to "clarify" exactly what they want (even if you know exactly what they want). If your manager tries to pawn off the blame on you then you simply send the paper trail to whatever higher ups exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhhm...the iphone and xbox are simple and ubiquitous. They're also arguably affordable given how many people have no trouble paying for them.
Then again both are surpassed by competitors whose products are even simpler, cheaper and even more well known. Nokia for apple, wii for the xbox.
In your world of "opportunity for everyone" maybe. In the real world shit happens in such way that it may be practically impossible to get a solution. If the whole economy goes through the tubes, how can you guarantee yourself survival?
If you didn't have had this chance, you are pretty lucky, I had to pass by the downfall of USSR. It was a TREMENDOUS experience. And not the first and last one. I just refer it because it was a situation where, chances to find work were pretty grim.
And you might get hit by a car and end up with half your brain as little more than slush. That's not the situation we were talking about so I don't see why you're bringing it up. Losing your job and recessions are on the other hand
common occurrences that any reasonable person should protect themselves against. I can, for example, live comfortably for two years on my current savings alone (ie: no job, no income, etc.) and I only entered the job market three or so years ago (considerably more if I cut down my expenses to the bones). Granted I personally do have plans made in case the whole country I'm in implodes and they generally boil down to very quickly going somewhere else. That is coincidentally the same strategy my parents used when the USSR was imploding around them.
Now, guys like the one I described, don't have the experience of running through wars and major crisis. They are good guys, who hope to have a life without serious bumps. This bump going now is pretty bad for such people and don't tell me a anything about opportunities.
Assuming life has no bumps is foolish and like I said I have no sympathy for fools.
You didn't even think on what market, country, region or field I or this guy are in. So, drop a bit your shell, be it "conservative" or "liberal", and think for a little that the world is not everywhere the same.
So why don't you tell me? Or is your answer to any criticism to blindly yell "you don't know anything about the situation" without explaining? Why even bother posting something if your situation is so out of the ordinary it doesn't apply to anyone else?
And one note: You claim sysadmins have no excuse for considerable savings. That's consumerism, pal. That's management going nuts, not knowing what they are spending on. Not personally nor at company level. If you don't know how to manage your OWN money, how will you manage the company's money?
...frankly I have almost no idea what you just said, it's like you dumped some sentences through a meat grinder and posted them. How the fuck is that related to me saying that sysadmins have no excuse for not having a substation savings? I don't give a damn about who else fails at basic finance but simply that if you are such a person then whatever happens as a result is your fault.
I don't get just a salary, I manage budgets and personnel. If I would hear someone claiming such thing as you did here, I wouldn't even take the effort to see his CV. And don't tell me about that "IT ain't cheap". Yes I know it is not cheap. But it shall be rational. Specially, when you have companies burning millions of dollars of debt and you are one of the guys tasked to kick off these companies out of the hole they are in. So when I say - I will not look at such CV, I am pretty sure of what I am talking about.
Unfortunately, I know the reality. Yes, you are among the majority.
You know how many sysadmin CVs I refused to look at? It is not "opportunities". It's a very grim picture that makes me feel horrible.
And yet again I've got no bloody clue as to what point you're trying to make.
Frankly if losing your job means you're homeless then that's your fault. Shit happens in life and if you're so unprepared that one little bump sends you to the bottom then I have no sympathy for you. Sysadmins get paid well enough that there is no excuse for almost all of them to have considerable savings.
One could argue that no other form of communism can exist in practice and so far no large scale counter-example exist. Soviet communism is what happens when communism runs up against human greed and so far no one has found a way to remove human greed.
Have you read ANY of the stories on proposed security measures in the last five years? Only reason they don't run lie detectors on everyone is because it'd take too much time.
How many people live in your country? How many have cameras? How many routinely take photos? How many post those photos online?
So yes, you ARE asking for all public photography to be banned since it is a mass-scale imaging operation already. It's simply that no one has yet taken the trouble to link all of them together at the level of google street view but it's simply a matter of time.
If EMC's intent was STRICTLY to be sure trade secrets are not divulged, then why didn't they just ask him to sign an agreement for that?
Because no one would ever dream of lying and breaking a contract that is near impossible to enforce? Or do you have some magic ability that would let EMC know that someone divulged trade secrets and prove in court that a particular ex-employer did so?
No, the opposite probably. IBM is likely sending those servers straight to the junk heap (or recycling heap nowadays).
First of all because atmospheric drag slows things down and robs them of energy. Going to a higher orbit requires increasing velocity and adding energy. In other words, the laws of physics prevent your scheme from working.
There are other reasons I can think of but I think this one is enough.
I think that any mass in orbit is far more valuable there than back on earth. It still has all the energy the owner has paid for by launching it in the first place, and at ~$1000 per kg in LEO that is nothing to sneeze at.
There's already plenty of mass in space, we can cart up rocks from the moon for a pittance if we wanted to. The problem is that all that mass is useless since the cost of manufacturing things in space would be insane.
I think the solar sails should be used to cart the stuff into a higher orbit where the parts can be stored with less effort.
They aren't putting solar sails on these things in case you haven't realized.
So you want to spend mass to send up complex (and fragile likely) solar sails with complex guidance systems? Solar sails which, asfaik, have never been shown to actually work yet and that are not used by any existing system for orbit maintenance yet? Systems that are likely to fail, by pure chance, at some point and create more hard to track junk in non-decaying orbits than they could possibly prevent?
The problem is that whatever we sent up is not built for reusability it would seem.
There's a reason for that, look at the Hubble and how much it costs to repair it even though it was designed to be repaired.
Without a decent plan to produce something from space junk I guess nobody is going to worry about where the hardware in orbit goes beyond its eol, it has paid for the launch costs already why worry about much costlier manufacturing in orbit. Then it is also safer to just drop the stuff. This proposal is more of the same shortsighted thinking however. We will continuously put stuff into orbit, why let it decay back to earth if there could be a continuous reuse of material in orbit? Something goes up nothing comes down!
The space junk problem could finally lead to better planning for the future. Somebody could come up with an in orbit manufacturing and launch facility which buys the energy + material value of your satellite/booster. Its main bussiness would be in orbit manfacturing and launch of hardware with a certain orbit.
I would venture a guess and say that we already have the technology to make this work today. So it is time to check whether this could become a viable business model
Manufacturing capabilities in space would probably require sending up ten to a hundred times more mass than we've done up to this point in total. You're underestimating just how complex space craft are and how much industry is behind them. Given that it's inefficient to bother saving the crap since by the time it's useful it'll be an insignificant fraction of all the stuff in space.
Probably the only way that manufacturing things in space would be viable is if launch costs went down significantly at some point (be it cheaper launch mechanisms or cheaper sources of raw materials). In that case the value of that material in space is even less since it doesn't matter if it cost $2000/lb but only that it costs $20/lb then.
Space is not earth.
Moving things in space and keeping them from crashing into the atmosphere requires energy. Energy means fuel and fuel means you need to pay to send it up. Docking objects in space requires complex electronics which means even more mass to send up.
Recycling requires a highly advanced and complex industrial base which doesn't exist in space. If it did then you wouldn't need the junk since you can mine your own raw materials.
Many also support significant regulation of markets, such as more vigorous enforcement of antitrust law, and institution of net-neutrality rules.
That's a very specific type of regulation that is designed to encourage capitalism and competition rather than to limit it.
The difference is that hydrogen will cost twice as much per mile compared to pure electricity. Twice as much energy put in originally, twice as much fossil fuels used, twice as much pollution and so on.
Hydrogen car: Fossil fuel[100% energy] -> electricity [50% energy] -> hydrogen [25% energy] -> electricity via. fuel cell [22% energy] -> car wheels [20% energy]
Electric car: Fossil fuel[100% energy] -> electricity [50% energy] -> car wheels [45% energy]
Note that I'm using very conservative numbers and hydrogen is likely to cost a lot more than twice as much given anything close to current technology.
WW2 was a bad idea just like any other war. That the alternative was an even worse idea doesn't change the fact that neither of the two options was inherently good.
No you don't, you simply need to know if there is a floppy or not. You get this by checking using a different less efficient method (spin up) for the presence of a floppy.
Check on every windows start then, problem solved.
Lawyers don't get paid a lot, some lawyers get paid a lot. Just passing the bar exam gives you more or less nothing.
You have to go to a good school, rank highly at that school, do well on the bar exam, join a well known law firm, work your backside off for 80 hours a week and so on.
Bittorrent? I pulled 40+gb last month by watching hulu, netflix and other online content (it's like 1-2gb/hour or so). Granted, another 30gb came from perfectly legal bittorrents for videos I didn't feel like streaming at the time.
This is basically time warner deciding that they want to force you to buy their cable tv package.
Soviets aren't the only ones doing those experiments and finding volunteers:
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEM1YPVLWFE_research_0.html
You basically get paid for lying around doing nothing while others take care of your needs. For many less fortunate people that's probably a massive improvement from their day to day lives. No need to worry about food, shelter, bills, crappy job and so on.
This probably wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't lead in many cases to child abuse, or at least the risk thereof.
And being unable to release their urges without harming actual children isn't going to lead to more child abuse?
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. I was simply saying that quite a bit of what you can learn in a masters program doesn't stop mattering in five years. Either it'll be around for some time or the new stuff will be based on what you learn (thus making it a lot easier to pick up). It can essentially provide you with better fundamentals and extend them to advanced topics.
As for research, I did it as an undergrad and I simply didn't consider it a good use of my time as a grad student since I had no intention of going into academia. I lacked the depth to do much more than I'd do as a final project for half my classes so it seemed pointless.
Or I was in a masters program instead of a phd program.
Most of the things I learned in grad school were invented before I was born. Most of the rest were simply re-hashes of old methods to new problems or to better hardware.
If you're taking classes that have a half-life of five years then you're doing it wrong or you're going to a degree mill college. The point of college is not to teach you crap (ie: programming languages, tools, etc.) that you can learn in two hours on your free time.
If you're working as a glorified monkey then sure however if you plan to do more than grad school helps a lot in most fields.
The difference, as someone else also pointed out, is that in the corporate you can shop around till you find a sane company. Interviews are as much about you learning of your potential employers as it is about them learning about you.
Also, any intelligent worker knows to get everything in writing and to save the paper trail for future usage. If your manager tells you to do something verbally then the first thing you do is send an email to "clarify" exactly what they want (even if you know exactly what they want). If your manager tries to pawn off the blame on you then you simply send the paper trail to whatever higher ups exist.