Well...CO2 is not really "dirty" as far as plants and animals are concerned, at least, not at anything remotely like atmospheric levels. If global warming is in fact not as big a concern as believed, then reducing atmospheric CO2 has at best almost no beneficial impact on air quality, and in fact to the extent that CO2 mitigation takes priority to other air quality priorities, like sulfur and nitrogen oxides, it actually decreases air quality.

Yes, but NASA doesn't actually do either of those things.

It's the latter that enables the former.

You're like the person who decides to stop sleeping, because they'd rather be getting productive work done.

Your current wage is completely irrelevant. Your compensation is based on agreement between you and the company in recognition of the value you bring to the organization. If you feel they are making an undervaluation it is because you are not demonstrating the value that you bring to the organization properly. Here are some recommendations...

1) Try to get the person you will be reporting to involved. HR usually has no idea what you do or how you do it. Your direct manager will at least have an idea, if not a full understanding.
2) This can be tricky in a low-level management because your value is largely based on your ability to control/influence others. You need to draw connections between your past actions and the goals of the business.
4) Finally you don't add value to the business by being a tech who leads, so don't sell yourself that way. You add value to the business by being an interpreter, you can make your subordinates more productive by insulating them from the push and pull of the business. And you make the business more able to achieve its goals by being able to effectively communicate technical concepts to them without making their eyes glaze over. The most important thing in this capacity is the ability to mirror someone to build a report if you are unable to do that or don't know what that means then that should be item number 1 for you to learn.

This is a fair assesment on their part until you can prove otherwise.

This doesn't have anything to do with leadership, your job was to keep the project on-track and you did that nothing more. Not to say that you didn't use leadership skills to keep it on track, but this statement doesn't address that. When you look at the project from a 50,000 feet view then you aren't demonstrating your skills you are collecting statistics, and unless you have a massive number of them then you have no real data. But if instead you look inside Project X at a specific point when the project was at risk, Then demonstrate the risks and the subsequent actions you took which turned the project around and thusly earned/saved the company Y dollars. This is how you can demonstrate leadership and business value.

You are either (1) not worth what these other individuals are (2) working for less than your value. It is quite simple. Simple but irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you are making what you are making because at some point you made a decision that either made perfect sense or not a lot of sense. The only way you change that is to present the business case and hope that you presented it well. These other individuals have different skillset different experience to draw on and different abilities.

One final thought, you aren't going to win this one with salary surveys and similar data. This is not how compensation is determined. Factor 1 - Companies Budget, Factor 2 - Employee Requirements. If they have budget to pay 2.4M annually but you are willing to work for 50K, they are not going to split the difference with you, and they shouldn't, they will pay you the 50K you require and pocket the rest. Now considering you are an existing employee you need to demonstrate the value that you bring in order to be able to change your requirements. So don't worry about what others are making. Worry about the value you are bringing to the organization then once you demonstrate that then the company will be far more likely to shave off some of that and let it fall on your plate.

And for goodness sakes involve your soon-to-be new boss, he can make all of this go away if he wants to. But he won't do it without a reason.

You misunderstand. Databases already have the functionality builtin to allow you to gain a higher consolidation ratio with using database instances then with OS virtualization, so while you can virtualize at the OS level database servers it doesn't make that much sense considering that the consolidation you are achieving is (1) attainable using database instances (2) more efficient - less redundant OS files, doesn't have the virtualized storage interfaces to deal with (3) easier to manage - less Operating Systems and the same amount of DB instances so Sysadmin work goes down and DBA work stays flat.

Additionally considering database licensing if you are running SQL then you would need a SQL license for each virtualized OS. If you are using Oracle it is more of a moot point unless you are using Oracle VM as your virtualization platform as you have to license all the cores in the physical box anyways.

The bottom line here is that you have to be able to get them to notice you. The way you get noticed (in no particular order)...

1) have a degree
2) have experience
3) have certifications
4) do something so interesting that they have to notice you.

If he can't do one of the above then honestly it is all a crapshoot after that.

Personally I don't have a degree, I have some certifications unrelated to my position. But I maintain a personal blog where I document interesting technical problems. Which I sell the crap out of in my resume and interviews (if I haven't mentioned it three times in an interview I am not paying attention). A blog is good because it demonstrates technical ability, communication skills, and the best part is that it can be so condensed. Something that takes them 2 minutes to read will have taken days to run through the steps and fully validate and document (would you let an interviewee walk you through an hours worth of work to show you that they know how to do something - I wouldn't). The best part of this approach is, that if you can get them to read your blog before the interview then you can steer the conversation towards meaningful topics (that you are well-versed in) this makes it easy to show the value you bring to the business. Additionally folks in IT are notoriously bad at documentation, every organization has the same problem and knows it, and every manager _wants_ to fix it. So you are going to introduce all of these crazy thoughts in his head about how you will light a documentation fire under the rest of your team members, and he will no longer have this problem (honestly he still will - its part of the program) but at least it will get better with you.

Another key area that alot of people forget about the process of finding a job is the interview. You should be interviewing the company and not the other way around. You should know that you can add value to the company (otherwise why did you apply? If you just want a job go to McDonalds!) the only question should be if the company can add value to you. Because of this you should make sure that you are asking questions like...

What sort of career progression is available in this position? Where do I go next, What do I do when I get bored?
What technical challenges is the company currently facing (bonus points if you can solve them)?
How would I fit into the organization? What would my role be at a minumum and what can it be if I show the value that I can bring?

If your first thought after the interview is "phew... Glad that is over." then you're doing it wrong.

The bottom line is that you have to have a clean enough resume to get past the HR folks, you have to be able to talk the technical talk and do the technical walk to get past the technical folks, and you have to be able to show business folks the value you can add so that they will give the technical folks the go ahead to hire you. If you break one link in that chain then you better have impressed another link in that chain because they will have to fight like hell to hire you.

Of course you could always just work cheap, though to me that is just a race to the bottom there is always someone willing to work cheaper. The key is to add value.

The grandchild is below-average in reading, but what the OP doesn't say if that is because of the lack of effort or ability from the parents or if that is from the lack of aptitude of the child, if the problem is his aptitude then I would wager that he has improved since coming home based solely on the student teacher ratio. Honestly our public school system is excellent at churning out below average students, so it doesn't devastate me that the home schooled student is "below average" in this case. I think that the parents are irresponsible if they are not making adjustments for it, however a key point to notice is that Grandpa is posting this from the perspective of "how can I make science more interesting and engaging?" instead of "how can I get my grandchild out of the clutches of his parents and into the public school?" this indicates that he is 1) actively involved in the education process 2) trying to make adjustments to improve the education of the child. The second is key, because honestly that doesn't happen in public schools.

So bottom line, there are other factors which should be considered when rushing to judgement, but hey this is /. so let us begin with the vague generalizations...

Also it is important to note, that they will most likely never toss that codebase as their support costs are non-existent.

I highly doubt this vehicle is intended to be weaponized. You would still need a ridiculous number of them to provide 1 hr strike capability to anyplace on Earth. There are just so many practical problem with using an orbital platform that way, when ship- or aircraft-launched cruise missiles - or ballistic missiles, for that matter - can do the job about as well for a lot less money.

Far more likely, I think, is an advanced orbital surveillance drone, with enough manuevering capability to frequently change orbit to monitor changing sites of interest, and, when low on propelland, be able to land, refuel, and take off again. This would (1) reduce the number of spy sats needed (which typically have limited manuevering), (2) allow frequent upgrades to observation abilities whenever it landed, and (3) make it much, much harder to predict when overfly will be, increasing the probaility of seeing something interesting.

I/O is not a valid argument against not virtualizing something. Proper architecture will allow you to control your I/O and guarantee the proper disk I/O regardless of your workload being virtualized or physical.

The problem is when you take and virtualize without a thought towards optimizing the hardware to ensure that you don't cause problems for yourself later on down the road. Now that said I don't virtualize database servers in prod (I do in dev/test - but that is different), however this has nothing to do with disk I/O. Databases instances are really a form of virtualization to begin with, and they are fairly dense and performant too. So there is really no consolidation argument that should need to happen at the OS level, in the same way that there is not a valid argument to virtualize your hypervisors to achieve a higher level of consolidation, since at the end of the day you are limited by your physical hardware anyways.

So the key thing with regards to virtualizing anything is I/O separation, you should have separate pools of disk for your tiers of I/O sensitivity. Running your most critical workloads on your highest I/O disk pool and then not oversubscribing it to the point of I/O impact.

-matt

Re-Enter The Dragon

It's worth noting, too, that while they launched off of government property, SpaceX did in fact construct all of the pad infrastructure at their own expense. (They did get some help, from, e.g., the Air Force agreeing to sell them a scrapped 110,000 gallon LOX sphere for $1.)

I believe it is a roll control thruster that operates off of stage vent gas.

No rockets use oxygen from the air even during the first stage; it's simply not concentrated enough even at sea level. What you're describing is something like a ramjet or scramjet, but those are still in active development and don't work at all at low take-off speeds.

So the name *itself* is not offensive, it only reminds him of hateful, offensive people that have hurt him and the people he loves.

When it comes to public acceptance, it's a distinction without a practical difference.