Quality of sys admin is inversely proportional to the number of rules they have to work under. The more red tape an admin has the worse the actual results they will provide.
Very true.
I'm a sysadmin in a DoD Classified network on a USAF Base (LOTS of red tape) and the first rule is security (which it should be). That pretty much means lock everything down. Some examples include: lock the USB ports, prevent writes to CD-RW Drives, prevent writes to DVD-RW Drives, audit everyhthing (PL2), prevent printer installs, software installs/removal, lock down screen savers (executable code), password changes every 62 days, approved software installs only which usually means we are lagged on releasees, etc, etc, etc. Some of these are silly, yes, but I don't make the rules. The "red tape" is mandated to us by the Air Force.
All this red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently are annoyed with the admins because they can't do something as simple as copy data from a classified PC to a classified laptop for a presentation. They have to track down an admin to do the copy for them. Paperwork must be filled out and whitnesses present. They may not have access to files due to security permissions. Won't delve into the requirements here but it has to do with employees from different companies all working the same program who potentially have access to each company's proprietary information. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently claim the sysadmins "don't know what they are doing", which isn't the case at all. The users are deliberatly not allowed to do what they are trying to do. However a majority of the user community thinks us admins make the system painful to use on purpose. Not the case. and they frequently take out their frustrations on us.
I work on an Air Force Base and noticed that all the lights in the common areas that remain lit 24x7x365 are all being replaced with CFL's. This is where I think CFL's will make the biggest impact, that is, in places where the lights remain lit for a majority of the day, if not all day long.
CFL's in the our homes?... eh, I don't know. I don't have any lights on during the day because the sunlight through the windows is plenty (I understand this won't be the case with everyone). At night, I have maybe three lights on in the room I'm occupying. So CFL's won't save me a whole lot of money nor lessen the burden on the eletrical grid. I do think replacing all appliances with Energy Star compliant models would make a bigger imapct in energy savings than CFL's (regrigerator, freeze unit, dishwasher, dryer, washer, etc).
There is another annoyance when converting to CF bulbs that no one has mentioned... at least in the posts I read minus the 600+ rated 2 or lower.
My wife and I painted our kitchen a light-yellow/gold color. With the incandescent bulb, the color is exactly what we thought it would be based on the paint strip sample from Home Depot. However, when you replace the incadescent bulbs with CF bulbs, the color changes drastically. Now it looks like tinted brown/yellow, and neither of us are too fond of it, nor the prospect of repainting our kitchen. So back in went the incadescent bulb.
Hopefully this will allow us to predict when and where these extreme forces of magnetic flux occur so that we can prepare to repair satellites or shut them down for safety reasons
About the only thing you can do when the sun burps out a bunch of fast moving particals is fold the satellite up (solar panels) and configure the electronics for minimal use. Then you pray it doesn't get hit or take damage, but you can't shut them down. I'm not sure DirecTV customers, among others, would like this. Other than that, there's not much you can do. You can't move it because 1) where would you move it to? and, 2) that would use too much fuel greatly reducing the satellites life. When they run low on fuel, most super-sync them or rocket them out to space using what little fuel is left. Letting them fall out of orbit or forcing them down to Earth is not an accepted practice anymore (too much liability/risk).
So I'm not sure we need fancy weather reports on space weather.
I work for Lockheed Martin on a classified contract for the USAF and our entire classified network infrastructure is not accessible from the outside (no VPN, no dial in, no nothing). It's a completely isolated AND encrypted network. It's a pain to work on/maintain, but it's the only way you can guarantee no one other than an insider can compromise the system by manually copying data to removable media and taking it with them. Leaked information at this level could causer serious harm to nation's national security.
When I read articles like this one, it makes me wonder what classification of information was compromised. I highly doubt it's DoD Secret or greater and if it's less than that, the damage caused by this information landing in the wrong hands is probably minimal, though disconcerting.
Power consumption is a big issue. A 50"+ plasma will gobble up about 650 watts/120 volts = 5.4 amps. So, if you just go and buy a 50"+ plasma screen not taking into consideration the other electrical devices on the same circuit as the Plasma screen (Amplifier = 1.5A, TiVo = 0.5A, Reciever = 0.25A, DVD = 0.25A, overhead lights = 3A, lamps = 1.5 amps, computer equipment = A lot...), you may find yourself within about 10% of the 15 amp breaker. That's when the little breaker outside gets a little twitchy. Power surges could easily blow the breaker... not to mention the wife plugging the vaccuum cleaner into a spare outlet in the same room.
I'm not sure "everyone" thinks this is necessary. But enough apparently do think it's important, including myself. What do you think NASA should be spending their money on that is so much more important?
In my opinion, the mission is a good idea. Think of repairing/maintaining Hubble as an insurance policy. Rocketry and blasting things into space isn't easy as mishaps do occur and quite frequently. Satellites, Mars rovers, and other things blow up upon liftoff or fail to reach their intended orbits. The chance remains that when the new orbital telescope is ready for launch/deployment, something could go wrong (weren't the mirrors dorked up on Hubble when it first deployed?). With a working Hubble up there, at least there would be one orbital platform we know works in the event something happens to the new one due to launch some years in the future.
Then once the new one is up and running, we let Hubble go.
I know this isn't the case all the time because a friend from high school who never went to college (not a single class, ever) is a project manager for Google at the engineering center in Santa Monica, CA. To his credit, he is probably one of the most gifted people I know and have ever met.
And yeah,... if the prospective employer doesn't pick up the travel expense tab, that should be a major red flag that either 1) They are not sure of your abilitiy and don't want to waste any money on you, 2) They have no money in which case you probably won't be interested after you hear their offer.
I went to college and started my IT career in Silicon Valley (San Jose State) back in the late 1990's. Right out of college I was making 70K/year and couldn't afford to live in the area. My rent in a somewhat "nice" part of San Jose at the time was costing me $1831/month for a 711 sqft apartment (yes, I remember it to the dollar because I was living month to month, dollar by dollar). When I got notice they were rasing my rent to $2050/month, I had had enough. I tried every single option I could think of to qualify for a jumbo home loan (because the median home price was around $400K), but simply couldn't due to "not enough credit history" and "my debt to loan ratio being too high" (car, student loans). I basically had two options...
1) Buy a cheaper house in Gilroy or Tracy and commute 1.5 hours to Sunnyvale each way to and from work.
2) Roll the dice, take a job in another state, and hope I like it.
To my surprise, I found positions that paid more than what I was making in California elsewhere in the country where the cost of living was considerably less. The smaller cities don't have the same talent pool to pull from when it comes to local IT professionals, so I think they are willing to dish out a bit more to lure in a good experienced candidate. For example, the position I took in North Carolina (Research Triangle Park) offered me a 20% raise and paid all my relocation expenses. I figured what the hell and left the state. After two years, I found another position in Colorado that offered 10% more than what I was making in North Carolina plus total relocation expenses. I've been here in Colorado Springs (less than 1 million population) for 4 years and can't believe how much it sucked working in Silicon Valley.
I travel back about 2x a years on business and visit college friends who are still living with roommates in apartments. Just seems like time stands still there. I ask them why they still in the area and their argument is "you can't make this kind of money elsewhere in the country in an IT position." I tell them you can't look at the salary number by itself. You have to compare it to cost of living and quality of life for gods sake. The difference between salaries in other places compared to California are not all the much different. He is paying $2200 for rent. I tell him he can buy a house 3x the size of his apartment with a mortgage payment $1000 less than his rent. Not only is he paying $12K/year less in "rent" but he gets to write-off the interest on the home (not to mention home appreciation). That's like another $6K. Car insurance, gas, registration are all much cheaper. That's like another $2000 a year difference. Add it all up and your cost of living makes a difference of about $20K/year. Salaries here in Colorado don't differ by that much compared to what you can make in a comparable position in California.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true.
I'm a sysadmin in a DoD Classified network on a USAF Base ( LOTS of red tape) and the first rule is security (which it should be). That pretty much means lock everything down. Some examples include: lock the USB ports, prevent writes to CD-RW Drives, prevent writes to DVD-RW Drives, audit everyhthing (PL2), prevent printer installs, software installs/removal, lock down screen savers (executable code), password changes every 62 days, approved software installs only which usually means we are lagged on releasees, etc, etc, etc. Some of these are silly, yes, but I don't make the rules. The "red tape" is mandated to us by the Air Force.
All this red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently are annoyed with the admins because they can't do something as simple as copy data from a classified PC to a classified laptop for a presentation. They have to track down an admin to do the copy for them. Paperwork must be filled out and whitnesses present. They may not have access to files due to security permissions. Won't delve into the requirements here but it has to do with employees from different companies all working the same program who potentially have access to each company's proprietary information. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently claim the sysadmins "don't know what they are doing", which isn't the case at all. The users are deliberatly not allowed to do what they are trying to do. However a majority of the user community thinks us admins make the system painful to use on purpose. Not the case. and they frequently take out their frustrations on us.
I work on an Air Force Base and noticed that all the lights in the common areas that remain lit 24x7x365 are all being replaced with CFL's. This is where I think CFL's will make the biggest impact, that is, in places where the lights remain lit for a majority of the day, if not all day long.
... eh, I don't know. I don't have any lights on during the day because the sunlight through the windows is plenty (I understand this won't be the case with everyone). At night, I have maybe three lights on in the room I'm occupying. So CFL's won't save me a whole lot of money nor lessen the burden on the eletrical grid. I do think replacing all appliances with Energy Star compliant models would make a bigger imapct in energy savings than CFL's (regrigerator, freeze unit, dishwasher, dryer, washer, etc).
CFL's in the our homes?
One of the virtues of this system being, though, it can set up a shot quicker than a Tomahawk
... And with the extreme velocity, will make it difficult to intercept unlike a slower moving Tomahawk.
There is another annoyance when converting to CF bulbs that no one has mentioned ... at least in the posts I read minus the 600+ rated 2 or lower.
My wife and I painted our kitchen a light-yellow/gold color. With the incandescent bulb, the color is exactly what we thought it would be based on the paint strip sample from Home Depot. However, when you replace the incadescent bulbs with CF bulbs, the color changes drastically. Now it looks like tinted brown/yellow, and neither of us are too fond of it, nor the prospect of repainting our kitchen. So back in went the incadescent bulb.
Hopefully this will allow us to predict when and where these extreme forces of magnetic flux occur so that we can prepare to repair satellites or shut them down for safety reasons
About the only thing you can do when the sun burps out a bunch of fast moving particals is fold the satellite up (solar panels) and configure the electronics for minimal use. Then you pray it doesn't get hit or take damage, but you can't shut them down. I'm not sure DirecTV customers, among others, would like this. Other than that, there's not much you can do. You can't move it because 1) where would you move it to? and, 2) that would use too much fuel greatly reducing the satellites life. When they run low on fuel, most super-sync them or rocket them out to space using what little fuel is left. Letting them fall out of orbit or forcing them down to Earth is not an accepted practice anymore (too much liability/risk).
So I'm not sure we need fancy weather reports on space weather.
I work for Lockheed Martin on a classified contract for the USAF and our entire classified network infrastructure is not accessible from the outside (no VPN, no dial in, no nothing). It's a completely isolated AND encrypted network. It's a pain to work on/maintain, but it's the only way you can guarantee no one other than an insider can compromise the system by manually copying data to removable media and taking it with them. Leaked information at this level could causer serious harm to nation's national security.
When I read articles like this one, it makes me wonder what classification of information was compromised. I highly doubt it's DoD Secret or greater and if it's less than that, the damage caused by this information landing in the wrong hands is probably minimal, though disconcerting.
Power consumption is a big issue. A 50"+ plasma will gobble up about 650 watts/120 volts = 5.4 amps. So, if you just go and buy a 50"+ plasma screen not taking into consideration the other electrical devices on the same circuit as the Plasma screen (Amplifier = 1.5A, TiVo = 0.5A, Reciever = 0.25A, DVD = 0.25A, overhead lights = 3A, lamps = 1.5 amps, computer equipment = A lot ...), you may find yourself within about 10% of the 15 amp breaker. That's when the little breaker outside gets a little twitchy. Power surges could easily blow the breaker ... not to mention the wife plugging the vaccuum cleaner into a spare outlet in the same room.
I'm not sure "everyone" thinks this is necessary. But enough apparently do think it's important, including myself. What do you think NASA should be spending their money on that is so much more important?
In my opinion, the mission is a good idea. Think of repairing/maintaining Hubble as an insurance policy. Rocketry and blasting things into space isn't easy as mishaps do occur and quite frequently. Satellites, Mars rovers, and other things blow up upon liftoff or fail to reach their intended orbits. The chance remains that when the new orbital telescope is ready for launch/deployment, something could go wrong (weren't the mirrors dorked up on Hubble when it first deployed?). With a working Hubble up there, at least there would be one orbital platform we know works in the event something happens to the new one due to launch some years in the future.
Then once the new one is up and running, we let Hubble go.
I know this isn't the case all the time because a friend from high school who never went to college (not a single class, ever) is a project manager for Google at the engineering center in Santa Monica, CA. To his credit, he is probably one of the most gifted people I know and have ever met.
... if the prospective employer doesn't pick up the travel expense tab, that should be a major red flag that either 1) They are not sure of your abilitiy and don't want to waste any money on you, 2) They have no money in which case you probably won't be interested after you hear their offer.
And yeah,
I went to college and started my IT career in Silicon Valley (San Jose State) back in the late 1990's. Right out of college I was making 70K/year and couldn't afford to live in the area. My rent in a somewhat "nice" part of San Jose at the time was costing me $1831/month for a 711 sqft apartment (yes, I remember it to the dollar because I was living month to month, dollar by dollar). When I got notice they were rasing my rent to $2050/month, I had had enough. I tried every single option I could think of to qualify for a jumbo home loan (because the median home price was around $400K), but simply couldn't due to "not enough credit history" and "my debt to loan ratio being too high" (car, student loans). I basically had two options ...
1) Buy a cheaper house in Gilroy or Tracy and commute 1.5 hours to Sunnyvale each way to and from work.
2) Roll the dice, take a job in another state, and hope I like it.
To my surprise, I found positions that paid more than what I was making in California elsewhere in the country where the cost of living was considerably less. The smaller cities don't have the same talent pool to pull from when it comes to local IT professionals, so I think they are willing to dish out a bit more to lure in a good experienced candidate. For example, the position I took in North Carolina (Research Triangle Park) offered me a 20% raise and paid all my relocation expenses. I figured what the hell and left the state. After two years, I found another position in Colorado that offered 10% more than what I was making in North Carolina plus total relocation expenses. I've been here in Colorado Springs (less than 1 million population) for 4 years and can't believe how much it sucked working in Silicon Valley.
I travel back about 2x a years on business and visit college friends who are still living with roommates in apartments. Just seems like time stands still there. I ask them why they still in the area and their argument is "you can't make this kind of money elsewhere in the country in an IT position." I tell them you can't look at the salary number by itself. You have to compare it to cost of living and quality of life for gods sake. The difference between salaries in other places compared to California are not all the much different. He is paying $2200 for rent. I tell him he can buy a house 3x the size of his apartment with a mortgage payment $1000 less than his rent. Not only is he paying $12K/year less in "rent" but he gets to write-off the interest on the home (not to mention home appreciation). That's like another $6K. Car insurance, gas, registration are all much cheaper. That's like another $2000 a year difference. Add it all up and your cost of living makes a difference of about $20K/year. Salaries here in Colorado don't differ by that much compared to what you can make in a comparable position in California.