I know this new fangled world is still baffling for you, having evidently slept for the last few hundred years, but during your nap we've invented certain things. They include the refrigeration, which is like the ice box of your time but keeps things cold (or even frozen) year round with no need to fit it with expensive blocks of harvested ice. We have also invented the microwave which is like a fast heating oven without the heat, fire or time the later requires.
I recommend you look into these fine inventions before commenting again.
Since when is youtube a valid academic source of information?
Since Stanford and other places decided to put up their free lectures on it. It's now a very legitimate and very good source of educational information. You can also download them via bittorrent. Not to mention all the other useful how to videos. Amazingly people don't want to pay to host things and are perfectly fine letting google do it for them.
That is btw why blocking is a very very bad idea. Because idiots like you run it and are as up to date on what actually matters as dinosaurs would be about Victorian fashion.
since you aren't specifically paying for the internet
At my school you sure as hell did pay specifically for internet, separate bill and all that, later bundled with phone service (to increase the price since no one wanted phone service).
Why does it matter? Just because an alternative isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not better. How often have software patents prevented reverse engineering? Does anyone even care anymore? Oh god, if I reverse engineer I'll get sued but if I try to make my own independent version I'll get sued as well. How many frivolous patent lawsuits are happening every single second? How much innovation is stiffed because anything you do is under fifty potential patents backed by a mountain of well paid lawyers?
You know what prevents reverse engineering? The cost of doing so successfully and the delay during which you get to exploit the market.
If the infection beats the protection, then the cleanup must be fast and fully automated, otherwise it's more efficient to re-image in this situation.
Define more efficient. Does the hours upon hours someone spend re-installing and re-configuring their system after a re-image count? What about the time spent reloading data from backups? And the time making an image because the last backup was a week ago? Then having to manually reload the files that have changed since that time?
That's not a lot of data, if you think it is then you haven't seen how much data some corporations have. At my last job I didn't even notice a stray terabyte here or there.
Let's say you end up with 1TB worth of data per day and 400TB per year. Facebook has 21 petabytes in it's 2000 machine hadoop cluster . Every day they add 12TB of compressed data and scan through 800TB of compressed data. Yahoo had 40000 machines in it's various hadoop clusters.
400TB a year is nothing. You'd need maybe 100 of those 12TB facebook like servers for that (with replication, etc, etc.). Let's say 300 across two data centers for true redundancy. A moderately sized cluster as such things go.
The cost of a server is I think $10000/year. So that all comes out to only $3million per year, make it $10million with all the usual corruption involved in such things. Basically peanuts to a government.
I don't understand what the airlines get out of it,
Airlines want a flight that is 100% filled (they also want to make the most money out of those sales but that's a different point). Every empty seat is money thrown out the window for them so it's something they really want to avoid.
Unfortunately people cancel flight all the time so even a flight that's 100% booked can end up with empty seats on the day of the flight. So airlines try to predict how many people will cancel and overbook just enough to compensate for that.
The models they use are very sophisticated but it's impossible to perfectly predict something as random as cancellations.
Whats interesting here is that this part of the spectrum has been licensed to them (and presumably paid for), yet is unusable because up to 75% of GPS receivers, that use frequencies just up the range, next door to Lightsquared's spectrum, have insufficient adjacent channel rejection and will be jammed. This is not a problem of Lightsquared's making, it's because the GPS's have been built to poor design standards and allowed onto the market and into circulation.
So if I tell you that we're going to play hockey and you bring proper protection then I shoot you with a shotgun it's your fault for not bringing a bulletproof vest?
Those frequencies were supposed to be for satellite transmissions, GPS worked perfectly fine under that assumption. Lightsquared would have paid a lot more for frequencies that were allocated for ground transmissions. They didn't. They tried to cheat the system and rightfully got burned.
Furthermore as others have pointed out there's a physical limit on what can be filtered out and a ground transmitter would have caused interference no matter what type of GPS device or filtering you had.
You used large pool rates compared to a specific location.
The demographic corresponding to Foxconn workers has, at best, an average suicide rate so baring further data my comparison is generally valid. Foxconn hires more people than live in many cities, at that scale you're gonna get a lot of unhappy people in absolute not matter what the working conditions are.
Granted, I never said Foxconn is a paradise but merely that it's not a hell hole either. Probably a better work environment than the Mexican crop pickers get in the US (and not as health destroying long term).
Mostly I find the focus on suicide rates hilarious because that's one thing that Foxconn can't really be called out for. You'd probably get more suicides if you actually implemented all those Western reforms people want, freedom has a lovely was of causing gluttony, drama and despair. Maybe I just find the western-centric manifest destiny "we're perfect and better in every regard" view of the world so two centuries ago.
And if you ever wonder why all those other people are making more money than you it's because they're not too gutless to take minor risks. Granted, if you're screwed up so badly you have no savings or safety nets then you probably aren't going to do well in the future anyway.
"your employment is conditional on your signing this, if you'd prefer not to, be sure to turn in your card on the way out!"
And then they either spend another $10k+ looking for another potential employee or hire someone they deemed inferior to you. Finding qualified workers is generally a pain in the ass across the board in IT. So the company is on the hook as much as you are at that point.
I never said the process to make the hydrogen is clean, just that the burning of the hydrogen is clean. Read what I wrote already.
And I called you an idiot for having such a limited viewpoint on what counts as "clean." Please do keep up.
It gets me when people claim that electric cars are so much 'greener' than internal combustion cars, patting themselves on the back because they 'don't pollute'. All they're doing is exporting their smog someplace else.
People have done the math, even assuming coal power plants it's still better to use electric cars. So congratulations on once again showing yourself to be small minded.
Electric motors have 80+% batteries-to-wheels efficiency. Internal combustion engines have 20% efficiency gas-to-wheels. Modern power plants get close to 50% efficiency. So basically, electric cars are more efficient and that's not counting the effect of off-peak charging. Or that power plants can put more output air filters in place. Batteries muddy the picture but that's got nothing to do with smog. It's pretty much always more efficient to burn stuff for power in a central location if you plan to convert it to electricity.
The cleanest rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen as the 'oxydizer'.
And where does that hydrogen comes from? Magic elves?
No, as the post you utterly failed to understand already said, it comes from turning Methane into H2 and CO2. Or turning Coal into electricity and then using that to split water. Not very environmentally friendly at all.
Simply moving the pollution from one place to another is not being more environmentally friendly, it's called being short sighted.
How many times do you supposed they actually tested engine start IN THE SPACE CRAFT? I'm guessing ZERO.
I'm sure they tested the engine multiple times. I'd figure the stress of the launch (vibrations, etc, etc.) causes something to fail either due to shoddy construction or small debris falling onto something.
I doubt space qualification made any difference at all. The window for space radiation in the brief time it was operational was small.
Exactly. I doubt all those laptops on the ISS are radiation hardened but they last quiet a while anyway.
Also, to be blunt if you don't see unemployment as an opportunity for growth then you're just not someone these companies want. Ever wanted to learn a new language or methodology? Now you have time. Ever wanted to make a mobile app? Now you have time. Ever wanted to make a website that does X? Well now you have time. Ever wanted to contribute to OSS? Plenty of time for that. Ever wanted to learn AI? Why aren't you taking those free online classes from Stanford.
Cause those other resumes they're looking at? They have all that on them and more.
Why would they want to hire someone who apparently doesn't have initiative or drive?
If no one is interviewing you then that's your problem and no one else's. As I and surveys show, you're the exception. Maybe you have a crap resume, maybe you have no internships, maybe you are applying to positions you're not qualified for, maybe you didn't go to a good school, maybe your skill set isn't in demand.
Or maybe you just suck and lack the awareness to realize it.
Instead of blaming everyone else, maybe you should find ways to make yourself more employable. Learn in demand skills (ex: big data, hadoop, ec2) and go to networking events (can't chuck a ca grad without hitting fifty events n SV).
Actually I was referring to the various IT programs at UCB, including, but not limited to, EE, CS, EECS, etc. Can't even show a verified >40% employment rate with their surveys.
When 50% of your students don't respond it's impossible to have more than 50% verified employment. Apparently even basic logical thinking is beyond you.
And firms don't even bother responding to the top applicants, so how can you say that there's an intelligence factor involved? If they were getting interviewed and rejected, fine. But the firms don't even bother to do interviews.
They not only respond but they recruit them heavily. It's nice to be wanted.
Signing bonuses? Sheer amount of money? Surely you speak in jest. Such signing bonuses or salaries aren't showing up in the salary surveys of the top schools.
That's likely because those students are too busy making money to bother responding. Either that or they're in grad school making nothing but that's a different issue.
Stanford is saying they've got average salaries of $90k for new CS graduates and 82% of engineering students have found jobs within 6 months. Of course, only 30% of their students responded to the survey.
Then they simply need to open their resume queues and start treating the stream of applicants (as you put it, hundreds sometimes) in good faith. No H-1B's required. Simply treat the domestic applicants in good faith, call the ones up who are qualified for interviews, and the rest should fall into place.
They do, most applicants are worthless crap which is why they don't get an interview. The good ones get dozens of interviews. If a company interviewed everyone then they'd have no time to actually get any work done.
No they don't, having gone to a top school the Asians are the ones who go for math and engineering. WASPs tend to go more towards business type degrees, law school and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this new fangled world is still baffling for you, having evidently slept for the last few hundred years, but during your nap we've invented certain things. They include the refrigeration, which is like the ice box of your time but keeps things cold (or even frozen) year round with no need to fit it with expensive blocks of harvested ice. We have also invented the microwave which is like a fast heating oven without the heat, fire or time the later requires.
I recommend you look into these fine inventions before commenting again.
Since when is youtube a valid academic source of information?
Since Stanford and other places decided to put up their free lectures on it. It's now a very legitimate and very good source of educational information. You can also download them via bittorrent. Not to mention all the other useful how to videos. Amazingly people don't want to pay to host things and are perfectly fine letting google do it for them.
That is btw why blocking is a very very bad idea. Because idiots like you run it and are as up to date on what actually matters as dinosaurs would be about Victorian fashion.
since you aren't specifically paying for the internet
At my school you sure as hell did pay specifically for internet, separate bill and all that, later bundled with phone service (to increase the price since no one wanted phone service).
Why does it matter? Just because an alternative isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not better. How often have software patents prevented reverse engineering? Does anyone even care anymore? Oh god, if I reverse engineer I'll get sued but if I try to make my own independent version I'll get sued as well. How many frivolous patent lawsuits are happening every single second? How much innovation is stiffed because anything you do is under fifty potential patents backed by a mountain of well paid lawyers?
You know what prevents reverse engineering? The cost of doing so successfully and the delay during which you get to exploit the market.
If the infection beats the protection, then the cleanup must be fast and fully automated, otherwise it's more efficient to re-image in this situation.
Define more efficient. Does the hours upon hours someone spend re-installing and re-configuring their system after a re-image count? What about the time spent reloading data from backups? And the time making an image because the last backup was a week ago? Then having to manually reload the files that have changed since that time?
You have forgotten that the vast majority of criminals are utter and complete morons.
So since only 30% of crimes are ever solved in Canada (15% for property crimes, 55% for violent crimes) the police must just be utter morons.
That's not a lot of data, if you think it is then you haven't seen how much data some corporations have. At my last job I didn't even notice a stray terabyte here or there.
Let's say you end up with 1TB worth of data per day and 400TB per year. Facebook has 21 petabytes in it's 2000 machine hadoop cluster . Every day they add 12TB of compressed data and scan through 800TB of compressed data. Yahoo had 40000 machines in it's various hadoop clusters.
400TB a year is nothing. You'd need maybe 100 of those 12TB facebook like servers for that (with replication, etc, etc.). Let's say 300 across two data centers for true redundancy. A moderately sized cluster as such things go.
The cost of a server is I think $10000/year. So that all comes out to only $3million per year, make it $10million with all the usual corruption involved in such things. Basically peanuts to a government.
I don't understand what the airlines get out of it,
Airlines want a flight that is 100% filled (they also want to make the most money out of those sales but that's a different point). Every empty seat is money thrown out the window for them so it's something they really want to avoid.
Unfortunately people cancel flight all the time so even a flight that's 100% booked can end up with empty seats on the day of the flight. So airlines try to predict how many people will cancel and overbook just enough to compensate for that.
The models they use are very sophisticated but it's impossible to perfectly predict something as random as cancellations.
Whats interesting here is that this part of the spectrum has been licensed to them (and presumably paid for), yet is unusable because up to 75% of GPS receivers, that use frequencies just up the range, next door to Lightsquared's spectrum, have insufficient adjacent channel rejection and will be jammed. This is not a problem of Lightsquared's making, it's because the GPS's have been built to poor design standards and allowed onto the market and into circulation.
So if I tell you that we're going to play hockey and you bring proper protection then I shoot you with a shotgun it's your fault for not bringing a bulletproof vest?
Those frequencies were supposed to be for satellite transmissions, GPS worked perfectly fine under that assumption. Lightsquared would have paid a lot more for frequencies that were allocated for ground transmissions. They didn't. They tried to cheat the system and rightfully got burned.
Furthermore as others have pointed out there's a physical limit on what can be filtered out and a ground transmitter would have caused interference no matter what type of GPS device or filtering you had.
I'm guessing you were asleep when all the coupons for free digital tv receivers were given out, god that must have been a nice nap you had.
Plus paying $30 for a converter (and often $0) is very different than paying $20000 for a new GPS (yes, the aircraft ones cost around that much).
You used large pool rates compared to a specific location.
The demographic corresponding to Foxconn workers has, at best, an average suicide rate so baring further data my comparison is generally valid. Foxconn hires more people than live in many cities, at that scale you're gonna get a lot of unhappy people in absolute not matter what the working conditions are.
Granted, I never said Foxconn is a paradise but merely that it's not a hell hole either. Probably a better work environment than the Mexican crop pickers get in the US (and not as health destroying long term).
Mostly I find the focus on suicide rates hilarious because that's one thing that Foxconn can't really be called out for. You'd probably get more suicides if you actually implemented all those Western reforms people want, freedom has a lovely was of causing gluttony, drama and despair. Maybe I just find the western-centric manifest destiny "we're perfect and better in every regard" view of the world so two centuries ago.
You can skew the number all you want.
I simply stated straight up facts.
Facts are facts, and the fact is that the conditions at Foxconn are bad.
Yet the very suicide rate, which you brought up, disagrees.
That you can't accept facts and instead cling to your beliefs irrespective of the facts is not my fault.
So things are so good that they had to put up nets to stop people jumping off the buildings for joy?
The Empire State Building also has nets, does that mean all of NYC is a giant sweat shop filled with despair and misery?
For every million people in the US, there are 106 suicides per year.
For every million people in the China, there are 222 suicides per year.
For every million people at Foxcom, there are under 20 suicides per year.
So, in fact, the very low suicide rate at Foxconn is an indication of joy compared not just to China but to the USA as well.
And if you ever wonder why all those other people are making more money than you it's because they're not too gutless to take minor risks. Granted, if you're screwed up so badly you have no savings or safety nets then you probably aren't going to do well in the future anyway.
Wow, you lack a spine don't you?
"your employment is conditional on your signing this, if you'd prefer not to, be sure to turn in your card on the way out!"
And then they either spend another $10k+ looking for another potential employee or hire someone they deemed inferior to you. Finding qualified workers is generally a pain in the ass across the board in IT. So the company is on the hook as much as you are at that point.
I never said the process to make the hydrogen is clean, just that the burning of the hydrogen is clean. Read what I wrote already.
And I called you an idiot for having such a limited viewpoint on what counts as "clean." Please do keep up.
It gets me when people claim that electric cars are so much 'greener' than internal combustion cars, patting themselves on the back because they 'don't pollute'. All they're doing is exporting their smog someplace else.
People have done the math, even assuming coal power plants it's still better to use electric cars. So congratulations on once again showing yourself to be small minded.
Electric motors have 80+% batteries-to-wheels efficiency. Internal combustion engines have 20% efficiency gas-to-wheels. Modern power plants get close to 50% efficiency. So basically, electric cars are more efficient and that's not counting the effect of off-peak charging. Or that power plants can put more output air filters in place. Batteries muddy the picture but that's got nothing to do with smog. It's pretty much always more efficient to burn stuff for power in a central location if you plan to convert it to electricity.
Since they reduce overall pollution, yes I am.
The cleanest rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen as the 'oxydizer'.
And where does that hydrogen comes from? Magic elves?
No, as the post you utterly failed to understand already said, it comes from turning Methane into H2 and CO2. Or turning Coal into electricity and then using that to split water. Not very environmentally friendly at all.
Simply moving the pollution from one place to another is not being more environmentally friendly, it's called being short sighted.
So, the effective cost of a car in terms of the average person's salary has gone up by a factor of 4.
No it didn't, stop lying. Your numbers are outright lies so please shut up.
The median household income, adjusted for inflation, was around $40k in 1960. It was $50k in 2008 or so.
The average price of a new car in 1960 was $18k, adjusted for inflation. It was $25k in 2008 or so.
How many times do you supposed they actually tested engine start IN THE SPACE CRAFT? I'm guessing ZERO.
I'm sure they tested the engine multiple times. I'd figure the stress of the launch (vibrations, etc, etc.) causes something to fail either due to shoddy construction or small debris falling onto something.
I doubt space qualification made any difference at all. The window for space radiation in the brief time it was operational was small.
Exactly. I doubt all those laptops on the ISS are radiation hardened but they last quiet a while anyway.
That's not an issue.
Also, to be blunt if you don't see unemployment as an opportunity for growth then you're just not someone these companies want. Ever wanted to learn a new language or methodology? Now you have time. Ever wanted to make a mobile app? Now you have time. Ever wanted to make a website that does X? Well now you have time. Ever wanted to contribute to OSS? Plenty of time for that. Ever wanted to learn AI? Why aren't you taking those free online classes from Stanford.
Cause those other resumes they're looking at? They have all that on them and more.
Why would they want to hire someone who apparently doesn't have initiative or drive?
If no one is interviewing you then that's your problem and no one else's. As I and surveys show, you're the exception. Maybe you have a crap resume, maybe you have no internships, maybe you are applying to positions you're not qualified for, maybe you didn't go to a good school, maybe your skill set isn't in demand.
Or maybe you just suck and lack the awareness to realize it.
Instead of blaming everyone else, maybe you should find ways to make yourself more employable. Learn in demand skills (ex: big data, hadoop, ec2) and go to networking events (can't chuck a ca grad without hitting fifty events n SV).
Actually I was referring to the various IT programs at UCB, including, but not limited to, EE, CS, EECS, etc. Can't even show a verified >40% employment rate with their surveys.
When 50% of your students don't respond it's impossible to have more than 50% verified employment. Apparently even basic logical thinking is beyond you.
And firms don't even bother responding to the top applicants, so how can you say that there's an intelligence factor involved? If they were getting interviewed and rejected, fine. But the firms don't even bother to do interviews.
They not only respond but they recruit them heavily. It's nice to be wanted.
Signing bonuses? Sheer amount of money? Surely you speak in jest. Such signing bonuses or salaries aren't showing up in the salary surveys of the top schools.
That's likely because those students are too busy making money to bother responding. Either that or they're in grad school making nothing but that's a different issue.
Stanford is saying they've got average salaries of $90k for new CS graduates and 82% of engineering students have found jobs within 6 months. Of course, only 30% of their students responded to the survey.
Then they simply need to open their resume queues and start treating the stream of applicants (as you put it, hundreds sometimes) in good faith. No H-1B's required. Simply treat the domestic applicants in good faith, call the ones up who are qualified for interviews, and the rest should fall into place.
They do, most applicants are worthless crap which is why they don't get an interview. The good ones get dozens of interviews. If a company interviewed everyone then they'd have no time to actually get any work done.
No they don't, having gone to a top school the Asians are the ones who go for math and engineering. WASPs tend to go more towards business type degrees, law school and so on.