Until you can tour space without weeks or months of training, until it is as easy as stepping onto a plane or boat(which require a 2-3 minute and 15-minute safety lecture respectively) the costs will be prohibitively expensive,
Until we have the ability to negate or absorb the gravitational force (ie Star Trek's Inertia Dampers) not only will it not be practical but unsafe. There are too many people that have unknown or undiscovered ailments and all it would take is a weak blood vessel in the brain to end the trip on a bad note. Training would likely weed out some of the issues but not always.
Apparently you are not comprehending the 'expensive' part. I too have a Masters in CS as well as PM and I too am currently unemployed (although I do work independently for a few companies as a contract engineer) and every time I have had a face to face interview, I have been told they cannot afford to pay me what I am worth BEFORE they even inquire what I am asking.
When I worked for Siemens as a PM I also was a hiring manager, and one thing that HM's do is look at qualifications and experience. If someone has 10 years experience and 2 other applicants have 3 years experience, a hiring manager is going to consider budget, and know the applicant with 10 years exp. will be able to demand more money ANYWHERE. So even if he was asking the same amount as the applicants with 3 years exp. the odds are greater that sometime in the future, near or far, a considerably better offer is going to come along and with 10 years exp. the applicant would be crazy not to take it. And therefore the HM has to decide whether to take the more experienced and risk having to train someone new in 6 months to a year or give one of the other applicants more experience and maybe keep them for 5 years.
As for the economy, What a joke. In the US, where its all about the rich and Corps, it never works no matter who is running it.
I never said running and supporting Windows was the same thing. On the contrary I said 2 out of 3 have SOME experience using Windows. I also added 'if not supporting Windows' to indicate that some of the people WILL have experience supporting Windows.
But as someone who loves to write in clear correct English and/or clean code when programming or scripting I feel it is redundant to say ' there are more likely 2 out of 3 people who have 'some' experience in using Windows and some will have experience supporting Windows'. So I just made my statement 'there are more likely 2 out of 3 people who have 'some' experience in using...' and at the end added '..........if not supporting Windows'
Now if you had a hard time understanding the meaning of my statement I apologize and feel maybe you need to find a grammar site to join and stay away from
Graciously
I think what is implied is that in an average area, there are more likely 2 out of 3 people who have 'some' experience in using if not supporting Windows. If you look at the numbers, In 2009, 80 % of the homes in the US have a Computer. where looking at OS distribution, Approx 80% of Users are running some form of Windows.
Our company has specialized equipment and as a Systems Admin I work with alot of different *NIX versions. From AIX to Solaris to Ubuntu. And I am the ONLY person in our 9 man IT department who can handle *NIX. Even the operators and users of the machines and terminals dont know anything about *NIX and they use these OS's everyday. So I believe that he wasnt trying to
make it sound like Windows just magically works.
He was just emphasizing the spread of common place OS users and and software compatibility, yes he was correct,
There isn't a right way to do this, depends on the situation. So decide if you are willing to support it (or if they have a support guy that handles Linux, which is unlikely),
If not Windows is the best way to go.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
