The goal of removing natural gas appliances is to get both current and future emissions down. Let's assume right now all electricity is generated from gas - that process is about 42% efficient. How efficient do you think a natural gas cooktop is? About 32% according to the EPA. Electric resistance cooktops are 75-80% efficient and induction is 85% efficient. So even factoring in cooktop and electricity generation efficiencies, you're already as efficient or better than the existing state. Heat pumps vs. furnaces? Sure, furnaces can hit 95% efficiency, but heat pumps generally move >3 times more energy than the energy put in. So again, you're more efficient.

The real benefit comes later when we switch to mostly carbon free methods of electricity generation. At that point, you won't need to do anything to appliances - they'll immediately benefit from the reduced carbon emissions. But old natural gas ones? They'll still be polluting as much as ever.

I've been out of the astronomy field for a few years, but I can give you a few ideas. A lot is going to have to do with what science you're doing - for example, narrow vs wide-field and faint vs bright targets are two main differences that will affect things.

A major problem is CCD issues. The biggest would probably be read out time. Most astronomical CCDs are designed for long exposures and no one has optimized the time it takes to read the actual data. Most CCDs (even at the world's best observatories) take a minute or more to read the data. If your exposure is 10 minutes long, a minute read out time is fine. If it's 30 seconds, then it dominates. Second is noise. Most of modern CCD noise is fixed per exposure (mostly read-out nosie). It's low, but measurable, and if you have too many exposures it can add up, particularly for faint sources. If you already have almost no signal because you're imaging a very faint target, then that read-out noise can dominate things.

Then there's the issue of data quantity. Images are big and you need lossless compression. If you suddenly need to increase your data volume by a factor of 10, that's going to be a huge issue. Observatories are typically in remote places. You can't just order up a new internet connection that easily. You could say that you could combine things automatically. To some extent you can. But no algorithm will be perfect, and people will want to keep the raw data regardless.

So yes, people can and do stack images. I did it myself many times. But it's not perfect and has it's complications. Software will take care of part of the issues. But astronomers would rather be doing science, not trying to figure out a way around satellite tracks.

This is not a completely correct statement. In certain wavelengths ground based adaptive optics can in fact beat Hubble for resolution. But AO does not work for visible (or shorter) wavelengths. It's also not as good without a real guide star, which is not always available close enough to every interesting object. Laser guide stars don't allow for quite the same amount of correction. Lastly, space telescopes don't have to deal with weather, clouds, or other ground-based issues.

True, AO is an enormous help for many interesting objects and future advancements may let it overtake space telescopes for most uses, but it's not perfect and can never completely replace space-based telescoeps.

Which goes to show how valuable programming skills are. Ideally, PIs want someone with a background in their field and the capabilities of an software engineer. It's very, very hard to find those, so you either get a PhD and tell him/her to learn how to code (often leading to horrible code that does the right thing) or get a software engineer (leading to high quality code but simple mistakes at the conceptual level - particularly since smaller projects have no requirement documents or the like). Typically you get more of the former and less of the latter.

With a programming background you can definitely get a job like this (as in your case). If the OP is more IT than computer science/programming, then he can also get a job but it'll be doing IT. Plenty of demand for it, but oftentimes not the most interesting thing.

I'm not as sure this would work out. Yes, computer skills are very much in demand, but if your background is in IT the only thing you can do independently is IT work, just in astronomy. Astronomy volunteers are typically on the leading tours or administrative side as opposed to the research side. Why? Because it takes several years of PhD work to understand what you're doing and another few just to be able to work semi-independently. I'd also point out that without the ability to work independently, you'll take up a lot of a professional's time. Yes there's more projects than time/money, but volunteers typically require a good amount of mentoring time (often more than you get out of the volunteer). Why should he/she work with you instead of, say, an undergrad who has an equal amount of time and a more recent background in physics/astronomy? The exception here is if you can offer something valuable - data analysis skills, image analysis, machine learning, and similar are all things that many astronomers don't understand who which are less domain specific.

I was an astronomer until I left the field last year after I graduated with my PhD. First, I definitely think it's great you want to contribute to research. My personal suggestion is to find a local astronomy club and see what they're doing. Find some books, news articles, etc... to read. That will hopefully give you a decent introduction. If you live near a university with a decent astrophysics program, you can also see if they have any public lectures or, if you want something more intense, attend seminars (though they're typically during the day). They're typically open to the public, but you should probably e-mail first just to double check. There are also things like Galaxy Zoo and similar projects that let you get involved without any commitment.

If you want to get more serious, you should think about what you want to do. Do you want to do any research? Participate in volunteer activities? Just go observing? For the latter, local astronomy clubs (or star parties) would be a good first start. Some of the big observatories also have programs for amateur observing. Mauna Kea is absolutely amazing for this - every night at the visitor center they bring out some decent sized telescopes (decent sized for seeing with your eyes) and there's usually a bunch of volunteers to help understand what they're pointing them at. Oftentimes dedicated amateurs will come up as well with even bigger telescopes and are happy to share. You also sometimes get professional astronomers who hang out there (like I did a few nights) though the amateurs are usually better at describing what you're seeing (professional astronomy is all about physics - not pretty images).

If you live near a big observatory (mostly southwest US, California, or Hawaii) you can also try to volunteer to be a docent there or something similar. Many of the observatories have some program for volunteers to help lead tours, attend public talks by researchers, and similar. The more dedicated volunteers get some perks, like joining for observing runs, seeing some of the behind-the-scenes things at the telescopes, and similar.

On the research side, it's a lot harder and a lot more investment (time, money, or both). To be able to do semi-independent research in astronomy you'd need to basically do a PhD. That's 40-50 hours a week (at least) for 5-7 years. It's hard. You can do more limited things though. For example, the AAVSO (American Association of Variable Star Observers) is a great organization that organizes observing of variable stars and provides some support to write up the results. Amateur data has been used in many papers. But, this requires having your own telescope that can take scientific quality images. You can also work on data analysis, but this will definitely require some time to understand how to do it. I'd also point out that most people underestimate how hard it is to write a scientific paper. Especially your first one.

As for going into it professionally, I agree with others who have said there are few jobs in the field. Especially if you have a family, it would be very hard to start from scratch.

They may have better soft products, but that's because of increased costs. A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe (e.g. LAX-SFO vs AMS-LHR). Want to fly cheaper in Europe? Then you get stuck with low cost carriers, who are efficient and make their money by stuffing more people into airplanes than anyone else (my knees are still complaining from an Iberia express flight a few days ago).

Moreover, in the US, if you fly a decent amount, you get status quickly. In Europe, it's several times harder (e.g. discount economy gives you only 1/2 miles and the number of miles you need is higher). I fly enough, and use United for every trip. I get a lot of small perks, including more legroom, priority security, etc... And I don't pay much more than the low cost carriers in Europe. So, for me, US carriers are much better than elsewhere.

Now, if you have the opportunity to fly on a legacy from Europe, or, particularly, from Asia, then that will be much nicer. But you'll pay for it.

Pharmacists don't override a doctor's prescription. Lipitor is the brand name of the drug Atorvastatin, which was developed by Pfizer. A prescription is for Atorvastatin (or Lipitor, whatever the doctor) writes down, but the drug is the same whether or not is was made by Pfizer (and called Lipitor) or by a different company (and called atorvastatin). Pfizer has simply made exclusivity agreements that pharmacies would not sell generic versions of atorvastatin. This might be bad for the consumer (price-wise, not health-wise), but they can always go to a different pharmacy if theirs refuses to sell the generic.

A few questions/thoughts to think about:

1) How do you know you'd enjoy working for the private space industry? Sure, it sounds cool, but until you try it, don't assume you'll love it.

2) Academics is not the most important thing. More important is getting experience. Look at the schools you're interested in and see what professors have contacts with the industry. E-mail them and, ideally, try to meet them. Most professors are very approachable and interested in working with undergrads. Sure, you'll be essentially free/cheap labor for 4 years. But you'll get hands-on experience and learn a lot, and, if you're any good, the professor will drop a note to his former students at SpaceX or whatever other company, who'll get you a job as soon as you graduate.

3) Take classes besides engineering. You'll learn a lot, meet new people (networking is the most important thing), and get a different perspective on life. And, you might decide something else is more interesting. Treat college as a chance to explore and learn, not a something to deal with on the way to what you think you want to do.

4) Male/female ratio and social interaction in general is essential. If you go to a good school, you will be battered by problem sets, projects, etc... You survive that by having friends, a significant other, etc... You don't survive that by just working harder. Having a good social life (which does not mean partying all the time) is vital for having a good college experience and being successful. Plus, you never know when your friends will be able to help you later in life. And learning how to socialize (which you're probably not the best at right now) while in college means you have the skills to be confident both for future personal relationships and when you look for a job and need to deal with other people.

5) If you/your parents don't have any money, go to a good state school or to a school that gives you a good scholarship and save >$100k. It's not really worth the hassle if you really take advantage of the opportunities in your school. And you can always work with a professor at another school during the summers.

6) If you do have the money, go to the best school you can. The advantage of those schools is not that the education is better, but that the networking opportunities are much better and that the professors there have the best connections. MIT and RPI are good. Also Cornell has a top notch engineering program (and it's my undergrad alma mater). Carnegie Mellon is very good. Also Cooper Union, UPenn, Princeton, and Columbia. Probably some others as well.

Good luck and remember, academics is not everything in life!

There are times I like the NY Times, and times I really can't stand them. This is one of the latter. Sales tax is not a reason that B&M retailers are having problems competing with online retailers. Price and service are.

Almost always, I can order something for half the price online. What do I get for doubling my cost if I go locally? Horrible customer service and having to drive to the store (even more money) instead of having it come to my door. Plus, my service experience with Amazon is better than just about any retail store. This lack of service basically rules out me buying electronics in any local store. And the price is usually cheaper online even with sales tax.

So when do I buy locally? When it's something I need that day, or is very small, or when the extra service (from a good store) is important. Local stores need to stop whining about sales tax and start offering better service. Who does this work for? Costco for example. I routinely pay more to buy from them (and pay sales tax!) because of their customer service and their return policies.

Why do people not pay use tax? Because it's a mess to figure out exactly how much you owe. Same for internet stores. Some municipalities have insane taxation rules where certain things are taxed, but not if they cost more than $x, or less than $y, or 20 other rules.

If states want to get paid salex taxes, simplify things. For example, all catalog/internet purchases are charged a 5% sales tax regardless of what you're buying. Even if each state set its own, one sales tax on all products linked to each state is simple to deal with. Particularly for smaller stores, setup a national processor (paid for by the taxes) that each store can simply send its collected taxes to with a state-by-state break down.

That's how you collect taxes on online purchases, not by whining.

What most people here don't get is that academia is very different than business. I have no experience with academic hospitals, but it if's primarily a research hospital, I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to most places in academia. I'm currently a PhD student, and neither my current university nor my previous one had any restrictions on servers so long as you didn't generate too much traffic. Most departments (in fact, most large groups) in universities have their own IT person who runs their own servers, and the main IT department is only responsible for managing campus-wide services (i.e. non-departmental services). Hardware owned by each department is subject to the policies of that department - some will enforce much more control than others. But I've never seen the situation where you couldn't bring in your own laptop and use it to work.

Again, this may or may not apply to academic hospitals, but the notion of a port being closed in a university is absurd.

Nothing of the sort will happen. The only reason the UN backed the Libyan rebels is because the Middle-Eastern countries agreed to it. The reason they agreed to it is because Gaddafi is crazy, and no one likes him.

Bahrain did have a revolution. It was crushed by the Bahraini, Saudi and UAE militaries. Sorry you missed it - it ended almost before it began. Saudi Arabia will not revolt (the government is way too strong and is slowly...very slowly...implementing reforms). As for Iran, anything is possible, but the government there has too much public support even with Ahmadinejad in power.

Get a VPS. You can get one for $20/month and set up a full e-mail server on it. You'll get better hardware and better connectivity than your own server. Your IP will be seen as coming from a data center, not a cable modem pool of addresses. You can also host your own website, and leave the server you have at your office for internal things only. For mail access, just set up IMAP and SMTP with TLS, with the latter on port 587 (known as the submission port) which is generally not blocked like 25 is.

Amtrak works by having the right of way for a certain window for each train. Basically, they have a schedule, and if they stick to it, it's fine. On the one long distance trip I did (LA to San Francisco) we left on schedule, stayed on schedule, and arrived on schedule, with no waits. But if they get behind at any point, it becomes horrible.

The problem is that Amtrak trains are very, very slow. LA-SF takes 12 hours. It takes 6 hours by car driving the speed limit. They also cost just a bit less than airplanes. The major advantages of Amtrak are lack of security and the space. Sadly, for high speed trains, I'm sure the first will be removed, and who knows about the second.

Therefore, why build high speed rail except in markets it actually would work due to the high concentration of people (northeast).