Those switches are cost-effective because of the needlessly high cost of low-end equipment.
Like $1000 for a Cisco branch office router vs. $1000 for a PC with enough memory and processing power and networking cards to run XORP and match the router functionality?
Or perhaps under $30 per port for a fixed Ethernet layer 3 switch at 100Mb?
If you think these machines are "needlessly high cost" then I'm not sure you quite understand network requirements. I'm not saying there aren't places where XORP will be successful, but there are places it can't get to in the forseeable future (at least 3 technology generations). The core of any enterprise network is MUCH more complicated than a single switch and employs much more reliability than can be provided by a PC. Companies still buy IBM mainframes for a reason, and that high end in the routing space will be routers from Cisco, Juniper and similar devices for the forseeable future.
The SMB market? Bring on XORP, they'll be playing with it by the end of the decade.
So first, XORP may achieve some success. There is a point that in some smaller (branch office) applications, a 'commodity' machine running Linux could replace a branch office router.
Why?
(1) There is no reason a reasonable x86 or (if you like) PowerPC 970 couldn't keep up with a T1 or T3 speed connection (1.5Mb or 45Mb); even when performing some level of deep packet inspection.
(2) Commodity machines are "lying around" and may be easier to procure (and manage) then requiring a specialized solution.
(3) It's controllable, readable, and will likely have many of the characteristics of open source that we all enjoy (patches appear quickly, etc.)
While this is well and good, there are reasons why XORP will not achieve the same success as Linux when replacing the incumbent:
(A) There are hardware requirements beyond $0 to use XORP (and the incremental purchase cost of Linux over Windows is at most $0). The point is, if you don't purchase the router, you need to purchase a computer. With branch office routers at $1000 or so anyway, can you really configure a machine to compete with a dedicated solution?
(B) You just CAN'T take out the high-end, high-value part of the routing infrastructure with any commodity PC. First of all, the darn thing isn't nearly big enough to handle all the connections (core routers can be multiple racks). Nor is the bus fast enough to handle the bandwidth requirements (PCI can't exactly get to 480Gbps). Not to mention that the net processing power would need to increase a few orders of magnitude to do the work. This isn't happening any time soon, as bandwidth needs are growing as fast as silicon processing power is growing.
(C) Speaking of which: Moore's law is helping out the routers, too. We're all on silicon; this isn't a game where commodity devices are improving at a faster pace than the incumbent technology. This goes back to the cost point; if there is enough volume to drive a dedicated solution, that will continue to survive.
(D) Remote really isn't all that remote... for any reasonably large company, they have routing experts that can manage the routers from a remote location. The added challenge of having a few remote routers is not much of an event, except when hardware upgrades are required.(E) It's not all about the ability to route. Can a PC keep up with latency, jitter, and uptime (99.999%) requirements when using a network for VoIP? (I don't know, but I have deep suspicion that it can't without blowing out the budget)
Please don't get me wrong - XORP may have some places where it can trump Cisco and Juniper (SMB, for example?); but routing with the traditional players and traditional hardware devices will be here for some time.
Bring back permanent character death, and I'm interested again
Great, just don't make me pay for it. Because if I'm spending money on it, I darn well don't want to lose my investment because some idiot who enjoys the thrill hunted me down and PvP'd me to death. It's not whining, it's about cooperating with other people, not competition to be 'cool' (stress the quotes) and see how many others you can push down to make yourself look better.
I agree, at least he writes back letting you know that he has a different opinion. Actually, his last response to me had something that struck me as common ground to work with. I will have to dig it up and post about it, if I didn't accidentally recycle it already.
Seriously, be careful when you discuss the $15.95 CD issue... and do the research on where the money goes. The problem is as much about business models in the entire industry as it is about the RIAA itself... you have to be careful to criticize the RIAA for what the RIAA actually controls and not for what the industry just does poorly. Otherwise, the argument doesn't fly very well. Some people (not saying you are, but generalizing) incorrectly use "RIAA" just like they use "Intellectual Property" as a catch-all phrase, and that isn't always valid.
On costs, at 30% margin for the retailer, you're down to $11.25 or so purchased by the retailer. The distributor bought it for $9 or so. Now you know why Wal-Mart can sell them for $10 or $11. Anyway, there is a licensing per song (which may be bulked to per CD if there are enough by the same person) which comes into play as well. Also consider that the $0.25 of hardware is the manufacturer, and there is markup from there to the record label (albeit small). I actually found a work-up of the costs before I sent my last letter to Leahy... I will try to dig that up again and post if I can find it.
Also, you probably know this, but make sure to do the research on the royalties issue and make sure it's a measurable infraction (vs. the fees the artists would receive from ASCAP)... if it's not measurable, it's not worth fighting about (well, it IS worth fighting about, but you're not going to get a response out of Washington unless it's blatent and large).
In some ways, the RIAA can be likened to a "chinese water monopoly", and what we need to be encouraging our Senators and the like to do is to prevent the erection of barriers to protect their monopoly (like writing specific business models into law). Such monopolies will always collapse (because thery're inefficient), but will do so due to an external force - we have to ensure the ability of that force to become strong enough and grow. I haven't had time to think that through as far as implications for policy, but that's one path to take as far as what to push that may be common ground.
and I'm not sure if anybody's ever built a laser-type thing for radio frequencies (raser? I find people joking about it on the Internet but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me).
Just consider that to create the coherent radiation, you need to have a reflector that is at least 1/2*W (where W is the wavelength) long (and it really has to be a multiple of that, too). You want to make it longer than that to avoid too much energy in too small of a space (to avoid melting the reflectors). Thus, a "raser" would have to be meters to tens of meters (or more) long to be practical... which makes it VERY unweildy and really too big to put on anything we are launching from earth given today's technology.
Masers work, because with microwaves, a few hundred wavelengths is only a millimeter long... easy.
The long answer: Unlike you as a programmer where it is probably only implicit for you to be "keeping up", for me, it's actually an explicit part of my job to be out reading things like ACM and a bazillion other sources (and then summarizing or directing such information to my organization). I find that there are really a few strategies to attack the problem you bring up. I use different strategies for different areas, due to the nature of my expertise, interests, and time constraints. I'm not sure how many of these will work for you, as I am really in a much different position (and not in software)... but I hope this helps give you a few ideas (or gives fellow/.ers something to critique and give you better ideas)
By the way, ADRA already mentioned to specialize, and covered much of this at a high level. I'm expanding on that, as well as new things (s)he may have meant, but which were not explicit in that post.
(1) Per ADRA's advice: Specialize. This means you need to clearly admit that you will NOT be the best at everything. It's a very difficult step for an engineering-type to take, but it helps your sanity. The real key is learning to ask "Why?" - Why do you need to know it? You don't need to know every programming theory out there, but those that are relevant to your current work environment and some level of scanning for items that may be relevant to add to your work environment (because they will provide tangible benefits). Be careful when you take this step not to completely shut out other things, or you risk missing important points and connections. Per ADRA's advice, set up some RSS feeds in your browser or at an aggregation site... and scan them for items that may be related to your focus. Read the items that are critical to your focus area. I also find that it helps keep things interesting to have both a formal focus area (required for my job) and a "hobby" focus area (that I find interesting and may lead to future opportunities). This keeps the world under control in terms of volume, but keeps me up to date in some critical areas. I change the "hobby" area periodically to ensure I continue to be challenged. Also, communicate with your co-workers that are in the same area or work on the same project to coordinate what you will look into. This may mean no overlap or intentional overlap, depending on your personalities and size of the group. But this can lighten the load and actually improve communication. You can also discuss certain topics with them to find out what they know and whether it is relevant to your current environment. If none of you know, a targeted (detailed) effort by the group should be able to find some good sources for all of you to use. As another strategy in specialization, I sometimes force themes into the work as well, deferring all reading on unit testing until a given month, for example (allowing it to build up and therefore being able to better realize what is good and what is a redundant item)
(2) Be a traffic director (or: don't specialize at all). This is actually a lot of what I do. I have specialists that are my co-workers. This may be because it is their responsibility or simply something they are interested in. They're a heck of a lot smarter than I am in almost every specific area. But my strength is putting the pieces together (or that's the theory, anyway:) ). Thus, when I scan something and it may be relevant to them, I forward on the link or article. I may include a specific question, e.g.: "Is this technology relevant to project X?" in order to get specific feedback. When I actually read something and it is relevant to my job and may have an impact on one of our projects or the company, I will send out a link to the article as well as my analysis (5 sentences or less) of why I think it's significant. (I may attach further links as educational material if there is high turnover of mem
I wouldn't worry, they probably have a good ten to twenty years of good times before people figure that out.
You have more faith than I do. Once we have a way to link the "islands" of Voice over IP that corporations and individuals are creating, I would expect Voice over IP to turn into a product, (think fax machine) rather than a service. Buy a Linksys device from your local electronics store and plug in. There will be NO revenue involved except for the "bit carrier", and that will be a race to the bottom between cable carriers and DSL providers. I would say that happens sooner rather than later. I think 10 years is generous.
I MIGHT (stress might) pay for a quick snippet of the end of the World Cup, Stanley Cup final, or World Series if I happened to be out and not able to actually see the same live. However, I can't see buying anything specifically for a cell phone screen. Too small, drains my battery, I'm not out wandering or driving somewhere in order to watch TV.
Not to mention that on a price per bit basis this will be something like 100,000x as expensive as cable television.
Of course, I think paying for ringtones is a dumb idea, too; but that's a multi-billion dollar industry!
Big business is already investing in VoIP. They are deploying it internally and having great success and savings.
Small business will be delayed - for the reasons you mention. However, in another post I mention that I think you will see AT&T and some of the existing IXCs (inter exchange carriers, aka long distance carriers) enter into the VoIP market in a big way. Expect them to use that as a lever to displace the local carriers if they can. It will come, but it won't be the little guys who bring it to the business world.
Many real companies, governments and other organizations are looking into and deploying Voice over IP. It IS happening.
As far as disappearing to be replaced by something else, that's a problem too. An analysis of FCC and industry data will show you the lifetime on such telecom equipment is VERY long - in many cases longer than a decade. So it will last, if for no other reason than "something else" isn't that much better, so it doesn't cost justify.
The real key here is that POTS is in trouble. The number of lines is going down (due to wireless) and the corporations are in a rush to Voice over IP. Why? Becuase it's cheaper, and the amount of voice traffic is now dwarfed by the data traffic. Thus, you can carry the voice traffic on the data network and completely eliminate the voice network. You can even do it with high quality of service for the voice, and it works because it's such a small percentage of the total network traffic. Expect some big announcements over the next year.
I doubt it. Location determination is very difficult. Part of the value of enhanced 911 is the fact that if you call and don't talk, the emergency dispatcher can still tell where you are. I'm not aware of any VoIP system that works with enhanced 911 today - although I'd be pleased to have anyone correct me if that's incorrect.
VoIP was technically possible in 1995 or so. Just like streaming a movie over a high speed Internet connection is theoretically possible today. It just takes time to commercialize. The reason it is getting so much attention now is that: (1) The networking industry is solving the latency problems that plagued voice (2) Advanced audio codecs are providing high quality voice in much smaller packets, improving service levels (3) data traffic dwarfs voice traffic, so it's possible to put the voice onto the network as "high quality traffic" and get the required throughput and completely avoiding the entire telephone network support and infrastructure cost (4) It's cheap as all get out in comparison to PSTN service.
What will further delay VoIP from entirely killing the PSTN, smong other things, are (1) The vendors (bad vendors!) are doing a Microsoft-like embrace-and-extend of SIP (the session initiation protocol used to set up a VoIP call) (2) Meeting regulations like CALEA (the law enforcement act that gives the government the power to tap the phones) (3) Truly connecting Voice Over IP "islands"... because how to you share IP addresses of phones and maintain privacy (like suppressing caller ID)... and the best savings come when you can remove the PSTN (public switched telephone network) entirely.
Latency is the problem - getting down to the ideal of about 70ms regardless of where in the world you are going is key. This is VERY difficult today, but possible even through a very narrow pipe (128K) with quality that rivals (or even beats) current "carrier grade" service. Up to 200ms or so is still a doable conversation, over that and you're starting to get a situation where conversation breaks down.
Note the 70ms comes from the time it takes for voice to travel across a reasonably large room - a delay the human brain will automatically account for without interpreting it as having a lag in the conversation.
The story is this: >50% of consumers will switch to VoIP even if quality and service levels are below current "carrier grade" service - IF the cost is 20% lower. This is easily achieved. But the IXC (Inter-Exchange Carriers - aka long distance providers) have the BRAND recognitition that a skype can only dream of. The ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, aka Baby Bells) may be hesitant to "eat their own children" and promote VoIP heavily. Expect AT&T to attempt to play the VoIP card in a big way over the next few years.... it can go through anyone's "pipe" and the value add is the "gateway" to the PSTN (public switched telephone network). It's a bet for survival (and a rush to the bottom on price), so it's a speculative move, but it may just work.
Please note for the record that I don't own stock of any IXC and certainly don't intend to buy any.:)
Actually, hydrogen is most commonly produced from steam reforming methane. Something like CH4 + 2-H20 = CO2 + 4-H2, if my ancient chemistry classes are serving me.
Using the Hindenburg as a comparison isn't fair. Recent studies have shown that the paint used is a near chemical relative to rocket fuel. Hydrogen is no longer blamed for the accident. See this video for more information. (requires realplayer)
Hmm... maybe we could use wind turbines to remove some of this energy from the air?
Because that dosen't help.
Conservation of energy implies that when you use the wind turbines to "remove" the energy from the air, it goes somewhere. Perhaps into electricity, where it eventually comes back as heat. The rest goes into friction in the turbine, which is, well, heat. You can't destroy it.
The only way to reverse the heat generation without external forces would be to run e=mc^2 backwards to remove energy (good luck powering that reaction without releasing extra energy).
Having said that, there are some (out-there) solutions which could be implemented. For example, if you set up a screen out in space that blocked say 0.0001% of the solar radiation headed to earth (and put that device in solar synchronous orbit directly between the earth and the sun) you could decrease the amount of energy reaching earth. But if you can do that, why don't you make it a solar cell in the first place and dispense with the whole nuclear thing?
I'm honestly not sure why it's naive. The Dutch are darn good at generating wind power today.
The important question is timescale. Will it happen soon? Heck no. I think coal was finally displaced as the USA's #1 electricity source only a decade ago. Might it happen? Sure. But you're looking at 2050 or later to get to "majority" for renewable sources.
There is actually a lot of uncaptured wind power in some pretty remote places (the Dakotas, for example). If you could capture that (split water into hydrogen and oxygen, send it to the Chicago area and convert back during daylight), it would be very useful and probably very profitable.
Give or take how long the energy policy of the US strings out the life of oil, it will eventually decline as a power source, due to scarcity. Solar will outdo wind in southern climes, but up in areas like the Northern US, Europe, and Canada, solar power just doesn't have the bang for the buck that wind does.
Even our best effort at wasteful voracious energy consumption is dwarfed by the amount of light and heat coming from the sun.
Help me out here...
The issue is not the magnitude of energy coming from the sun. I'm not sure anyone would believe that doesn't dwarf all of the energy we consume. The issue is NET magnitude of energy coming from the sun MINUS that the earth naturally dissipates into space.
Unfortunately, that data is a lot harder to get, because it can't be measured as an individual component, only as part of the larger earth system.
We can tell from past (ice & rock) records that these numbers are reasonably in balance (since the earth's temperature doesn't change all that much), but do you have any data pointing to the tipping point? For example, it would be fascinating to know just how much extra heat the few hundred PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is capturing and how that compares to our energy usage of 17x10^12 watts. Without such data, the significance of 17x10^12 watts of extra power cannot be reliably determined.
The problem with "free" is that there is no free lunch. The problem with Thermonuclear fusion is that it is producing HEAT. Even used to produce electricity, the end result (at my computer or light bulb or whatever) is HEAT.
That HEAT changes the environment, because it is a net addition of energy. The earth must dissipate that energy (presumably the atmosphere losing heat into space) or the environment will still be changing.
Don't get me wrong - It may be a LOT better than any other power system because it is a linear effect rather than a greenhouse effect (and of course, fusion doens't work yet), but it still has some effect. PERIOD.
Ihis is one thing i find strange about america (i'm an aussie) is the seperation of powers between the national government and the state government.
Well, in theory, we have a very clear distinction between federal powers and state powers. The states do whatever they want until the federal government finds a way to tax it or regulate it, and somehow fits it into the "commerce clause" of the US Constitution.
Given that the original framers of the Constitution designed the government to react slowly (hence the 6 year election term and rotating nature of the Senate), I almost wonder whether some ambiguity was intentional. Clearly, they couldn't see the developments we have today, but some of those original framers were really paranoid about what a government could do, and may have thought a slow (or deadlocked) government is better than a fast, irrational one. Remember, "a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky and dangerous animals and you know it" [from the movie MIB]
In australia the government collects the taxes, which is distributed through to the states. The states are responsible for the running of the state, and can collect taxes on state based services (such as plane tickets), the local council can collect money in it's own area (parking etc).
Which is also good in theory, but the clear traceability of funds you suggest make it too easy for you to tell what the politicians are doing, and therefore whom you shouldn't re-elect. The system we have now is biased toward the incumbent (I won't say rigged, because I don't believe it's that bad, but their are things we could do to improve it). The difficulty in tracing what gets spent where helps those in power. The flowing of funds back to the states for special projects (a.k.a. pork) also helps those in power.
There is a clear hirarcy of power, the national government sets all national laws, the state sets it's state based laws, the councils set thair own laws.
Which only goes to show: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
While your suggestion makes practical sense, you start to run into things like: Is it more efficient to have one set of regulations vs. 50 of them. The counter argument there is that the states seem to adopt each other's systems (look at how so many states - especially the Northeast - adopt California's vehicle emissions standards). In theory, this use of 50 different groups of regulators results in more experimentation, and you end up with better solutions.
I really don't mean to have a tinfoil hat on here. This is NOT an easy set of questions to answer and will cause great debate among people asked to design a "good" system.
Ihis is one thing i find strange about america (i'm an aussie) is the seperation of powers between the national government and the state government.
Well, in theory, we have a very clear distinction between federal powers and state powers. The states do whatever they want until the federal government finds a way to tax it or regulate it, and somehow fits it into the "commerce clause" of the US Constitution
In australia the government collects the taxes, which is distributed through to the states. The states are responsible for the running of the state, and can collect taxes on state based services (such as plane tickets), the local council can collect money in it's own area (parking etc). There is a clear hirarcy of power, the national government sets all national laws, the state sets it's state based laws, the councils set thair own laws.
Before anyone says "Of course System X is cheaper! Virginia Tech had free student labor to put it together! They paid them in pizza!"
No, my real question would be: What is the ongoing operating expenses of System X? After all, I'm interested in total cost of ownership, not in acquisition cost.
It's called "business sense" in my book. Occasionally analyze your largest components of spending to determine if they are necessary in their current incarnation. Look at alternatives, weigh risks, do cost/benefit and all that.
NASA is irresponsible if they DON'T do this occasionally (just not constantly) and such an investigation doesn't mean anything with regards to the formal "plans". If you have any knowledge of a strategy team or executive in a large company, you'll know just how often weird things that are "out of plan" are considered and subsequently dismissed... I guess it gives the rumor mill something to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Like $1000 for a Cisco branch office router vs. $1000 for a PC with enough memory and processing power and networking cards to run XORP and match the router functionality?
Or perhaps under $30 per port for a fixed Ethernet layer 3 switch at 100Mb?
If you think these machines are "needlessly high cost" then I'm not sure you quite understand network requirements. I'm not saying there aren't places where XORP will be successful, but there are places it can't get to in the forseeable future (at least 3 technology generations). The core of any enterprise network is MUCH more complicated than a single switch and employs much more reliability than can be provided by a PC. Companies still buy IBM mainframes for a reason, and that high end in the routing space will be routers from Cisco, Juniper and similar devices for the forseeable future.
The SMB market? Bring on XORP, they'll be playing with it by the end of the decade.
Why? (1) There is no reason a reasonable x86 or (if you like) PowerPC 970 couldn't keep up with a T1 or T3 speed connection (1.5Mb or 45Mb); even when performing some level of deep packet inspection. (2) Commodity machines are "lying around" and may be easier to procure (and manage) then requiring a specialized solution. (3) It's controllable, readable, and will likely have many of the characteristics of open source that we all enjoy (patches appear quickly, etc.)
While this is well and good, there are reasons why XORP will not achieve the same success as Linux when replacing the incumbent: (A) There are hardware requirements beyond $0 to use XORP (and the incremental purchase cost of Linux over Windows is at most $0). The point is, if you don't purchase the router, you need to purchase a computer. With branch office routers at $1000 or so anyway, can you really configure a machine to compete with a dedicated solution? (B) You just CAN'T take out the high-end, high-value part of the routing infrastructure with any commodity PC. First of all, the darn thing isn't nearly big enough to handle all the connections (core routers can be multiple racks). Nor is the bus fast enough to handle the bandwidth requirements (PCI can't exactly get to 480Gbps). Not to mention that the net processing power would need to increase a few orders of magnitude to do the work. This isn't happening any time soon, as bandwidth needs are growing as fast as silicon processing power is growing. (C) Speaking of which: Moore's law is helping out the routers, too. We're all on silicon; this isn't a game where commodity devices are improving at a faster pace than the incumbent technology. This goes back to the cost point; if there is enough volume to drive a dedicated solution, that will continue to survive. (D) Remote really isn't all that remote... for any reasonably large company, they have routing experts that can manage the routers from a remote location. The added challenge of having a few remote routers is not much of an event, except when hardware upgrades are required.(E) It's not all about the ability to route. Can a PC keep up with latency, jitter, and uptime (99.999%) requirements when using a network for VoIP? (I don't know, but I have deep suspicion that it can't without blowing out the budget)
Please don't get me wrong - XORP may have some places where it can trump Cisco and Juniper (SMB, for example?); but routing with the traditional players and traditional hardware devices will be here for some time.
Great, just don't make me pay for it. Because if I'm spending money on it, I darn well don't want to lose my investment because some idiot who enjoys the thrill hunted me down and PvP'd me to death. It's not whining, it's about cooperating with other people, not competition to be 'cool' (stress the quotes) and see how many others you can push down to make yourself look better.
Seriously, be careful when you discuss the $15.95 CD issue... and do the research on where the money goes. The problem is as much about business models in the entire industry as it is about the RIAA itself... you have to be careful to criticize the RIAA for what the RIAA actually controls and not for what the industry just does poorly. Otherwise, the argument doesn't fly very well. Some people (not saying you are, but generalizing) incorrectly use "RIAA" just like they use "Intellectual Property" as a catch-all phrase, and that isn't always valid.
On costs, at 30% margin for the retailer, you're down to $11.25 or so purchased by the retailer. The distributor bought it for $9 or so. Now you know why Wal-Mart can sell them for $10 or $11. Anyway, there is a licensing per song (which may be bulked to per CD if there are enough by the same person) which comes into play as well. Also consider that the $0.25 of hardware is the manufacturer, and there is markup from there to the record label (albeit small). I actually found a work-up of the costs before I sent my last letter to Leahy... I will try to dig that up again and post if I can find it.
Also, you probably know this, but make sure to do the research on the royalties issue and make sure it's a measurable infraction (vs. the fees the artists would receive from ASCAP)... if it's not measurable, it's not worth fighting about (well, it IS worth fighting about, but you're not going to get a response out of Washington unless it's blatent and large).
In some ways, the RIAA can be likened to a "chinese water monopoly", and what we need to be encouraging our Senators and the like to do is to prevent the erection of barriers to protect their monopoly (like writing specific business models into law). Such monopolies will always collapse (because thery're inefficient), but will do so due to an external force - we have to ensure the ability of that force to become strong enough and grow. I haven't had time to think that through as far as implications for policy, but that's one path to take as far as what to push that may be common ground.
Just consider that to create the coherent radiation, you need to have a reflector that is at least 1/2*W (where W is the wavelength) long (and it really has to be a multiple of that, too). You want to make it longer than that to avoid too much energy in too small of a space (to avoid melting the reflectors). Thus, a "raser" would have to be meters to tens of meters (or more) long to be practical... which makes it VERY unweildy and really too big to put on anything we are launching from earth given today's technology.
Masers work, because with microwaves, a few hundred wavelengths is only a millimeter long... easy.
The long answer: Unlike you as a programmer where it is probably only implicit for you to be "keeping up", for me, it's actually an explicit part of my job to be out reading things like ACM and a bazillion other sources (and then summarizing or directing such information to my organization). I find that there are really a few strategies to attack the problem you bring up. I use different strategies for different areas, due to the nature of my expertise, interests, and time constraints. I'm not sure how many of these will work for you, as I am really in a much different position (and not in software)... but I hope this helps give you a few ideas (or gives fellow /.ers something to critique and give you better ideas)
By the way, ADRA already mentioned to specialize, and covered much of this at a high level. I'm expanding on that, as well as new things (s)he may have meant, but which were not explicit in that post.
(1) Per ADRA's advice: Specialize. This means you need to clearly admit that you will NOT be the best at everything. It's a very difficult step for an engineering-type to take, but it helps your sanity. The real key is learning to ask "Why?" - Why do you need to know it? You don't need to know every programming theory out there, but those that are relevant to your current work environment and some level of scanning for items that may be relevant to add to your work environment (because they will provide tangible benefits). Be careful when you take this step not to completely shut out other things, or you risk missing important points and connections. Per ADRA's advice, set up some RSS feeds in your browser or at an aggregation site... and scan them for items that may be related to your focus. Read the items that are critical to your focus area. I also find that it helps keep things interesting to have both a formal focus area (required for my job) and a "hobby" focus area (that I find interesting and may lead to future opportunities). This keeps the world under control in terms of volume, but keeps me up to date in some critical areas. I change the "hobby" area periodically to ensure I continue to be challenged. Also, communicate with your co-workers that are in the same area or work on the same project to coordinate what you will look into. This may mean no overlap or intentional overlap, depending on your personalities and size of the group. But this can lighten the load and actually improve communication. You can also discuss certain topics with them to find out what they know and whether it is relevant to your current environment. If none of you know, a targeted (detailed) effort by the group should be able to find some good sources for all of you to use. As another strategy in specialization, I sometimes force themes into the work as well, deferring all reading on unit testing until a given month, for example (allowing it to build up and therefore being able to better realize what is good and what is a redundant item)
(2) Be a traffic director (or: don't specialize at all). This is actually a lot of what I do. I have specialists that are my co-workers. This may be because it is their responsibility or simply something they are interested in. They're a heck of a lot smarter than I am in almost every specific area. But my strength is putting the pieces together (or that's the theory, anyway :) ). Thus, when I scan something and it may be relevant to them, I forward on the link or article. I may include a specific question, e.g.: "Is this technology relevant to project X?" in order to get specific feedback. When I actually read something and it is relevant to my job and may have an impact on one of our projects or the company, I will send out a link to the article as well as my analysis (5 sentences or less) of why I think it's significant. (I may attach further links as educational material if there is high turnover of mem
Extracted from this FAQ.
Wikipedia has good information on the Electoral College, too. (see Faithless Electors).
Sorry I can't find any specifics on California's laws with regards to electors.
You have more faith than I do. Once we have a way to link the "islands" of Voice over IP that corporations and individuals are creating, I would expect Voice over IP to turn into a product, (think fax machine) rather than a service. Buy a Linksys device from your local electronics store and plug in. There will be NO revenue involved except for the "bit carrier", and that will be a race to the bottom between cable carriers and DSL providers. I would say that happens sooner rather than later. I think 10 years is generous.
Not to mention that on a price per bit basis this will be something like 100,000x as expensive as cable television.
Of course, I think paying for ringtones is a dumb idea, too; but that's a multi-billion dollar industry!
Small business will be delayed - for the reasons you mention. However, in another post I mention that I think you will see AT&T and some of the existing IXCs (inter exchange carriers, aka long distance carriers) enter into the VoIP market in a big way. Expect them to use that as a lever to displace the local carriers if they can. It will come, but it won't be the little guys who bring it to the business world.
As far as disappearing to be replaced by something else, that's a problem too. An analysis of FCC and industry data will show you the lifetime on such telecom equipment is VERY long - in many cases longer than a decade. So it will last, if for no other reason than "something else" isn't that much better, so it doesn't cost justify.
The real key here is that POTS is in trouble. The number of lines is going down (due to wireless) and the corporations are in a rush to Voice over IP. Why? Becuase it's cheaper, and the amount of voice traffic is now dwarfed by the data traffic. Thus, you can carry the voice traffic on the data network and completely eliminate the voice network. You can even do it with high quality of service for the voice, and it works because it's such a small percentage of the total network traffic. Expect some big announcements over the next year.
I doubt it. Location determination is very difficult. Part of the value of enhanced 911 is the fact that if you call and don't talk, the emergency dispatcher can still tell where you are. I'm not aware of any VoIP system that works with enhanced 911 today - although I'd be pleased to have anyone correct me if that's incorrect.
What will further delay VoIP from entirely killing the PSTN, smong other things, are (1) The vendors (bad vendors!) are doing a Microsoft-like embrace-and-extend of SIP (the session initiation protocol used to set up a VoIP call) (2) Meeting regulations like CALEA (the law enforcement act that gives the government the power to tap the phones) (3) Truly connecting Voice Over IP "islands"... because how to you share IP addresses of phones and maintain privacy (like suppressing caller ID)... and the best savings come when you can remove the PSTN (public switched telephone network) entirely.
Note the 70ms comes from the time it takes for voice to travel across a reasonably large room - a delay the human brain will automatically account for without interpreting it as having a lag in the conversation.
Please note for the record that I don't own stock of any IXC and certainly don't intend to buy any. :)
Actually, hydrogen is most commonly produced from steam reforming methane. Something like CH4 + 2-H20 = CO2 + 4-H2, if my ancient chemistry classes are serving me.
Using the Hindenburg as a comparison isn't fair. Recent studies have shown that the paint used is a near chemical relative to rocket fuel. Hydrogen is no longer blamed for the accident. See this video for more information. (requires realplayer)
Because that dosen't help. Conservation of energy implies that when you use the wind turbines to "remove" the energy from the air, it goes somewhere. Perhaps into electricity, where it eventually comes back as heat. The rest goes into friction in the turbine, which is, well, heat. You can't destroy it.
The only way to reverse the heat generation without external forces would be to run e=mc^2 backwards to remove energy (good luck powering that reaction without releasing extra energy).
Having said that, there are some (out-there) solutions which could be implemented. For example, if you set up a screen out in space that blocked say 0.0001% of the solar radiation headed to earth (and put that device in solar synchronous orbit directly between the earth and the sun) you could decrease the amount of energy reaching earth. But if you can do that, why don't you make it a solar cell in the first place and dispense with the whole nuclear thing?
The important question is timescale. Will it happen soon? Heck no. I think coal was finally displaced as the USA's #1 electricity source only a decade ago. Might it happen? Sure. But you're looking at 2050 or later to get to "majority" for renewable sources.
There is actually a lot of uncaptured wind power in some pretty remote places (the Dakotas, for example). If you could capture that (split water into hydrogen and oxygen, send it to the Chicago area and convert back during daylight), it would be very useful and probably very profitable.
Give or take how long the energy policy of the US strings out the life of oil, it will eventually decline as a power source, due to scarcity. Solar will outdo wind in southern climes, but up in areas like the Northern US, Europe, and Canada, solar power just doesn't have the bang for the buck that wind does.
Help me out here...
The issue is not the magnitude of energy coming from the sun. I'm not sure anyone would believe that doesn't dwarf all of the energy we consume. The issue is NET magnitude of energy coming from the sun MINUS that the earth naturally dissipates into space.
Unfortunately, that data is a lot harder to get, because it can't be measured as an individual component, only as part of the larger earth system.
We can tell from past (ice & rock) records that these numbers are reasonably in balance (since the earth's temperature doesn't change all that much), but do you have any data pointing to the tipping point? For example, it would be fascinating to know just how much extra heat the few hundred PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is capturing and how that compares to our energy usage of 17x10^12 watts. Without such data, the significance of 17x10^12 watts of extra power cannot be reliably determined.
That HEAT changes the environment, because it is a net addition of energy. The earth must dissipate that energy (presumably the atmosphere losing heat into space) or the environment will still be changing.
Don't get me wrong - It may be a LOT better than any other power system because it is a linear effect rather than a greenhouse effect (and of course, fusion doens't work yet), but it still has some effect. PERIOD.
Well, in theory, we have a very clear distinction between federal powers and state powers. The states do whatever they want until the federal government finds a way to tax it or regulate it, and somehow fits it into the "commerce clause" of the US Constitution.
Given that the original framers of the Constitution designed the government to react slowly (hence the 6 year election term and rotating nature of the Senate), I almost wonder whether some ambiguity was intentional. Clearly, they couldn't see the developments we have today, but some of those original framers were really paranoid about what a government could do, and may have thought a slow (or deadlocked) government is better than a fast, irrational one. Remember, "a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky and dangerous animals and you know it" [from the movie MIB]
In australia the government collects the taxes, which is distributed through to the states. The states are responsible for the running of the state, and can collect taxes on state based services (such as plane tickets), the local council can collect money in it's own area (parking etc).
Which is also good in theory, but the clear traceability of funds you suggest make it too easy for you to tell what the politicians are doing, and therefore whom you shouldn't re-elect. The system we have now is biased toward the incumbent (I won't say rigged, because I don't believe it's that bad, but their are things we could do to improve it). The difficulty in tracing what gets spent where helps those in power. The flowing of funds back to the states for special projects (a.k.a. pork) also helps those in power.
There is a clear hirarcy of power, the national government sets all national laws, the state sets it's state based laws, the councils set thair own laws.
Which only goes to show: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
While your suggestion makes practical sense, you start to run into things like: Is it more efficient to have one set of regulations vs. 50 of them. The counter argument there is that the states seem to adopt each other's systems (look at how so many states - especially the Northeast - adopt California's vehicle emissions standards). In theory, this use of 50 different groups of regulators results in more experimentation, and you end up with better solutions.
I really don't mean to have a tinfoil hat on here. This is NOT an easy set of questions to answer and will cause great debate among people asked to design a "good" system.
Well, in theory, we have a very clear distinction between federal powers and state powers. The states do whatever they want until the federal government finds a way to tax it or regulate it, and somehow fits it into the "commerce clause" of the US Constitution
In australia the government collects the taxes, which is distributed through to the states. The states are responsible for the running of the state, and can collect taxes on state based services (such as plane tickets), the local council can collect money in it's own area (parking etc). There is a clear hirarcy of power, the national government sets all national laws, the state sets it's state based laws, the councils set thair own laws.
No, my real question would be: What is the ongoing operating expenses of System X? After all, I'm interested in total cost of ownership, not in acquisition cost.
NASA is irresponsible if they DON'T do this occasionally (just not constantly) and such an investigation doesn't mean anything with regards to the formal "plans". If you have any knowledge of a strategy team or executive in a large company, you'll know just how often weird things that are "out of plan" are considered and subsequently dismissed... I guess it gives the rumor mill something to do.