They probably figured they would take some vacation... which would reduce this to at least 48 or 49 weeks instead. It looks like they were using 46 weeks as the guideline (as that is what the math works out at).
I considered that, and calculated the same 46 work-week figure you came up with. Have you ever known anyone in the US that started a new job with 6 weeks of vacation? I haven't; it's usually 2 weeks until you've been employed for a few years. I suppose we'll be hearing from someone who started off with unlimited vacation, but that has to be freakishly rare (and definitely not Amazon).
"An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)
Whoever wrote that is also sorely lacking in arithmetic skills. 23 minutes a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year comes out to over 99 hours.
There isn't much air at 55kft ether. I don't presume to know the flight envelope for an entire class of yet unbuilt airplanes.
Stratospheric flight at altitudes above 60kft using solar powered fixed wing aircraft was achieved quite a few years ago. You might find this informative. Still, long endurance remains a daunting challenge.
You think a solar powered, long loiter airplane would have the speed to fight the jetsteam? Solar powered planes will have the same problem.
Yes they might work outside the jetstream, but it moves.
A high altitude, long endurance aircraft would fly at nearly twice jetstream altitude, so the jetstream would not pose a problem for station-keeping. There isn't much wind at 55,000 to 65,000 feet. The problem, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is getting the airplane though the weather on ascent or descent. The structural robustness required to achieve that tends to make the airplane too heavy to climb to stratospheric altitudes. There are interesting experiments being done involving very flexible wings and active shape control, but that is definitely not ready for prime time at this point.
Satellites are prohibitively expensive, and are not a great solution for Internet connectivity because of very high latency, as anyone who has ever used Hughes Net can attest. Tethered balloons are a poor solution because they're vulnerable to inclement weather, and if you deploy them in sufficient numbers to provide decent coverage, the tethers become hazards to aircraft.
Untethered airships with station-keeping capability would be much better, if you can load them up with enough batteries to station-keep and run the comms equipment through the night, and carry enough solar cells to recharge the batteries while keeping station and running the comms equipment during the day. Solar-powered fixed-wing aircraft are interesting because they can climb during daylight hours and then trade altitude for power at night.
Long-term (i.e., months at a time) persistent coverage is a tough nut to crack, which is why it hasn't yet been demonstrated. The problem will likely become easier with the development of higher energy-density batteries and solar arrays with higher power/weight capability.
Yes, good old balloons make much more sense if you just need to get up high and stay there.
If by "stay there" you mean, "stay at high altitude", yes. If you mean "stay at a fixed location relative to the Earth's surface", then not so much. Station keeping is difficult and expensive with good old balloons unless they're tethered, and tethering is not practical at stratospheric altitudes.
Actually, building a solar airplane that can stay aloft as long as their business model demands, is a significant challenge. Reliability of servo actuators and electric motors is a major issue. Designing a structure light enough to minimize the power required to climb to very high altitudes, but robust enough to survive winds/gusts during ascent and descent, is a major issue.
$100,000/year in California is diddly. Municipal bus drivers can make that much here.
Where are you getting your data? Median California household income in 2015 was $64,500. And according to this, the highest paid bus drivers in the state are in Santa Cruz, making $57,420.
The money they pay those high-priced exec doesn't come out of thin air, it comes directly out of our pockets, in the form of higher prices and lower wages.
OK, what would happen if Cook was paid $0 per year and the money spread among the employees in the form of pay increases? Apple directly employs 66,000 people in the US. Dividing Cook's $8.75 million annual pay among them would increase their pay by a whopping $2.54 per week; more than enough for a venti Starbucks coffee. The non-US employees will have to continue getting by on their current wages.
Well, maybe we should use that money to decrease the price of iPhones instead. Apple sold about 212 million iPhones in 2016, so they could drop the price by $0.04.
Why is everybody calling it "local" law? A local law would be "no walking on this lawn", or "no parking on the pavement in this village". However, this is federal law in China, law that governs more than a Billion people, about 1/6 of the world population.
China has a unitary system of government, not federal. But I get your point.
In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement—and if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first.
Note the use of "the average". That is most definitely not "median", except in cases where the median is equal to the mean.
When I see "in most cases" in reference to video streaming, I think "Netflix". Netflix says UHD video is 7 GB/hr, or 10.5 GB for a typical 1.5 hr movie; HD is 3 GB/hr, or 4.5 GB for a typical 1.5 hr movie. But you won't see an auto-switch from HD to UHD unless you're paying Netflix a premium for UHD content. And if you're watching on your phone, you can manage cellular data usage separately in your Netflix account settings.
Well what is the point of higher connection speed if you don't use it for large transfers?
From my point of view, that's like asking, "What is the point of a faster disk drive if you don't use it to store more data?" The point of a higher connection speed is that regardless off the size of the transfer, the data you are transferring gets to you faster. You get a more responsive system. By the way, none of this should be taken as meaning I'm not in favor of larger (or non-existing) data caps. I just don't agree that 10X higher connection speed translates to needing 10X higher data allotment.
For example: 6mb/s? I'll just buy that 30gb Xbox game on disk (and still suffer through a multi-gig day-1 patch). 100mb/s? Digital it is! Yay! no more swapping discs!
You would download Xbox games on your mobile device? I must admit, I didn't consider that use case.
Want to stream 4K UHD content? Not with that 6mb/s you aren't. 30mb/s? Go for it!
I salute you for possessing the visual acuity to fully enjoy UHD video on your phone's screen.
I can just do the things I do now faster
And there we are. This is the main reason everybody and their mother moved from dial-up to ISDN to ADSL and on and on to the latest broadband technology. Also the reason most people cite for upgrading to faster computers and to solid state drives.
Speaking of SSDs, I've never heard of anyone saying, "My new drive is 10X faster than the old one; it needs to be 10X larger so I won't fill it up too fast (not to be confused with the common "cost per gigabyte compared to platters" complaint).
How many seconds of data before you reach your monthly data allotment? ATT will find a way to stick it to you on your bill.
I see this sort of comment quite frequently, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Clearly you will use more data if you keep your connection maxxed out, but that isn't how most people operate. Higher bandwidth does not mean you use more data to stream a movie; it just means you're less likely to have to put up with intermittent buffering. Higher bandwidth does not make the files you download larger, it just lets you acquire them more quickly. So exactly how does a higher connection speed force you to reach your monthly data allotment faster?
Except the people who buy cars, I guess. Ford's US market share (14.5%) in 2015 trailed GM, tied Toyota for second place, and beat Honda and Nissan handily.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably figured they would take some vacation... which would reduce this to at least 48 or 49 weeks instead. It looks like they were using 46 weeks as the guideline (as that is what the math works out at).
I considered that, and calculated the same 46 work-week figure you came up with. Have you ever known anyone in the US that started a new job with 6 weeks of vacation? I haven't; it's usually 2 weeks until you've been employed for a few years. I suppose we'll be hearing from someone who started off with unlimited vacation, but that has to be freakishly rare (and definitely not Amazon).
"An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)
Whoever wrote that is also sorely lacking in arithmetic skills. 23 minutes a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year comes out to over 99 hours.
There isn't much air at 55kft ether. I don't presume to know the flight envelope for an entire class of yet unbuilt airplanes.
Stratospheric flight at altitudes above 60kft using solar powered fixed wing aircraft was achieved quite a few years ago. You might find this informative. Still, long endurance remains a daunting challenge.
You think a solar powered, long loiter airplane would have the speed to fight the jetsteam? Solar powered planes will have the same problem.
Yes they might work outside the jetstream, but it moves.
A high altitude, long endurance aircraft would fly at nearly twice jetstream altitude, so the jetstream would not pose a problem for station-keeping. There isn't much wind at 55,000 to 65,000 feet. The problem, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is getting the airplane though the weather on ascent or descent. The structural robustness required to achieve that tends to make the airplane too heavy to climb to stratospheric altitudes. There are interesting experiments being done involving very flexible wings and active shape control, but that is definitely not ready for prime time at this point.
Satellites are prohibitively expensive, and are not a great solution for Internet connectivity because of very high latency, as anyone who has ever used Hughes Net can attest. Tethered balloons are a poor solution because they're vulnerable to inclement weather, and if you deploy them in sufficient numbers to provide decent coverage, the tethers become hazards to aircraft.
Untethered airships with station-keeping capability would be much better, if you can load them up with enough batteries to station-keep and run the comms equipment through the night, and carry enough solar cells to recharge the batteries while keeping station and running the comms equipment during the day. Solar-powered fixed-wing aircraft are interesting because they can climb during daylight hours and then trade altitude for power at night.
Long-term (i.e., months at a time) persistent coverage is a tough nut to crack, which is why it hasn't yet been demonstrated. The problem will likely become easier with the development of higher energy-density batteries and solar arrays with higher power/weight capability.
a 20 mile tether doesn't sound practical
It's not just impractical; it's downright dangerous, even with much shorter lengths. If tether breaks at the ground end, interesting things can happen.
Yes, good old balloons make much more sense if you just need to get up high and stay there.
If by "stay there" you mean, "stay at high altitude", yes. If you mean "stay at a fixed location relative to the Earth's surface", then not so much. Station keeping is difficult and expensive with good old balloons unless they're tethered, and tethering is not practical at stratospheric altitudes.
Actually, building a solar airplane that can stay aloft as long as their business model demands, is a significant challenge. Reliability of servo actuators and electric motors is a major issue. Designing a structure light enough to minimize the power required to climb to very high altitudes, but robust enough to survive winds/gusts during ascent and descent, is a major issue.
Brexit may exasperate this probably
No matter how exasperated you may be over Brexit, it's more likely to exacerbate the problem (or the probably, if that's really what you meant).
I suggest you take a look at this .
Isn't it illegal for states to pass laws that violate the US Constitution?
$100,000/year in California is diddly. Municipal bus drivers can make that much here.
Where are you getting your data? Median California household income in 2015 was $64,500. And according to this, the highest paid bus drivers in the state are in Santa Cruz, making $57,420.
The money they pay those high-priced exec doesn't come out of thin air, it comes directly out of our pockets, in the form of higher prices and lower wages.
OK, what would happen if Cook was paid $0 per year and the money spread among the employees in the form of pay increases? Apple directly employs 66,000 people in the US. Dividing Cook's $8.75 million annual pay among them would increase their pay by a whopping $2.54 per week; more than enough for a venti Starbucks coffee. The non-US employees will have to continue getting by on their current wages.
Well, maybe we should use that money to decrease the price of iPhones instead. Apple sold about 212 million iPhones in 2016, so they could drop the price by $0.04.
Why is everybody calling it "local" law? A local law would be "no walking on this lawn", or "no parking on the pavement in this village". However, this is federal law in China, law that governs more than a Billion people, about 1/6 of the world population.
China has a unitary system of government, not federal. But I get your point.
In other news books will be replaced with movies
Bzzzt! This is Slashdot, where analogies must use cars. In other news, cars will be replaced with horses.
I would first question how he could read the post. Can you get Slashdot on Gopher?
I doubt it. But you can get it using lynx (or its frames-enabled cousin links) if you use Linux.
That's median fucktard.
In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement—and if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first.
Note the use of "the average". That is most definitely not "median", except in cases where the median is equal to the mean.
When I see "in most cases" in reference to video streaming, I think "Netflix". Netflix says UHD video is 7 GB/hr, or 10.5 GB for a typical 1.5 hr movie; HD is 3 GB/hr, or 4.5 GB for a typical 1.5 hr movie. But you won't see an auto-switch from HD to UHD unless you're paying Netflix a premium for UHD content. And if you're watching on your phone, you can manage cellular data usage separately in your Netflix account settings.
Well what is the point of higher connection speed if you don't use it for large transfers?
From my point of view, that's like asking, "What is the point of a faster disk drive if you don't use it to store more data?" The point of a higher connection speed is that regardless off the size of the transfer, the data you are transferring gets to you faster. You get a more responsive system. By the way, none of this should be taken as meaning I'm not in favor of larger (or non-existing) data caps. I just don't agree that 10X higher connection speed translates to needing 10X higher data allotment.
For example: 6mb/s? I'll just buy that 30gb Xbox game on disk (and still suffer through a multi-gig day-1 patch). 100mb/s? Digital it is! Yay! no more swapping discs!
You would download Xbox games on your mobile device? I must admit, I didn't consider that use case.
Want to stream 4K UHD content? Not with that 6mb/s you aren't. 30mb/s? Go for it!
I salute you for possessing the visual acuity to fully enjoy UHD video on your phone's screen.
I can just do the things I do now faster
And there we are. This is the main reason everybody and their mother moved from dial-up to ISDN to ADSL and on and on to the latest broadband technology. Also the reason most people cite for upgrading to faster computers and to solid state drives.
Speaking of SSDs, I've never heard of anyone saying, "My new drive is 10X faster than the old one; it needs to be 10X larger so I won't fill it up too fast (not to be confused with the common "cost per gigabyte compared to platters" complaint).
How many seconds of data before you reach your monthly data allotment? ATT will find a way to stick it to you on your bill.
I see this sort of comment quite frequently, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Clearly you will use more data if you keep your connection maxxed out, but that isn't how most people operate. Higher bandwidth does not mean you use more data to stream a movie; it just means you're less likely to have to put up with intermittent buffering. Higher bandwidth does not make the files you download larger, it just lets you acquire them more quickly. So exactly how does a higher connection speed force you to reach your monthly data allotment faster?
Nobody wanted to buy a Ford
Except the people who buy cars, I guess. Ford's US market share (14.5%) in 2015 trailed GM, tied Toyota for second place, and beat Honda and Nissan handily.
By God, you're right! A mobile phone is not entirely unlike a nuclear power plant at all!
Whatever you say, AC, but I wasn't replying to her.
Even better.