The Shuttles were designed with hot-standby in mind.
What? It takes months to get a Shuttle prepared for launch. The only way to launch two Shuttles within a few weeks of each other is to begin launch preparations for both at the same time, months earlier. Remember, the Shuttle is not an operational vehicle. It has always remained a developmental and experimental vehiecle.
If the powers that be are THAT worried (which I'm not, we've done this several times before without incident)...
The fact is that we've lost one-half of the Shuttle fleet to catastrophic accidents. Whether or not we escaped disaster on previous Hubble missions is irrelevant today because the political climate surrounding the Shuttle program changed with the Columbia disaster.
As sad as I am about it, the shuttle is dead. I see little chance that it will be flying for much longer. My only hope is that it hangs on long enough to push for the new launch technologies.
You must have missed the news that there is a schedule for the Shuttle's decommissioning. My point is that another Shuttle launch would kill that program immediately. (Beyond that, I'd argue that the Shuttle, as designed a flown, has always been a pointless and missionless exercise. We built a truck but didn't pick a destination.)
It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.
And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.
Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind. The Hubble is a nice tool, but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science. Fixing it isn't worth the risk.
The media has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quality.
It isn't quality, it is behavior. If a Star employee acts and behaves like a reporter, then produces a story, that's journalism (regardless of what you or I might think of the story). If that employee sits at a desk and fabricates an entire story, that's not journalism.
I'm sure the Star's legal staff, or that of any supermarket tabloid, can fill in all the details.
"Blogging" Too Broad a Term To Be Useful
on
Is Blogging Journalism?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Blogging is far too broad a term to use with precision. It simply means the act of publishing something -- anything -- on a blog.
Likewise, writing is far too broad a term to use with precision. Most of what is written and published is not journalism, regardless of where it is published.
Then there's this: all reporters are journalists, but not all journalists are reporters.
Here's the point: journalism and reporting are types of behavior, rather well-defined, that merit protection. It is irrelevant where the product of that behavior -- the writing -- is published. If it happens to be published in a blog, then it merits protection.
But, simply writing for a blog doesn't, by itself, merit protection, anymore than writing for a newspaper, by itself, merits protection.
That means that if the ThinkSecret guy engaged in something we'd recognize as reporting to get that sotry, then the court's decision should apply to any and all journalists, whether they publish in a blog or not.
what's the connection between trust and publishing in public? If a blogger says his boss is a corrupt toad stealing money from orphans, why is that statement more trustworthy than if it was made over a couple of beers in a bar? Lot's of people make mistakes and lie in public.
A blogger may expose his biases and influences on his blog, but that doesn't build trust. It just provides me an understanding of how I need to filter everything that blogger writes. That's the same process that clueful readers have always applied to the consumption of any news source.
I've got 3 FM stations playing the music I enjoy and one flagship NPR station giving me everything else. And I it's free.
I don't buy satellite radio for the same reason I don't buy anything more than basic cable: I looked at the programming and saw nothing I'd watch or listen.
Satellite radio couold carry a thousand formats and I wouldn't buy it if I didn'y want to listen to those 1000 formats.
The political fallout from a disaster during a Hubble repair mission is something NASA can't absorb. No risk analysis can act as a buffer between NASA and a disillusioned public and a Congress full of people looking for reasons to gut NASA.
O'Keefe's decision was a political decision made for political reasons. Choosing not to fly the Shuttle's most dangerous mission was the right decision in the aftermath of Columbia. Not a popular decision, but the right decision.
Risk analysis is an engineering tool, but leading NASA is not an engineering task.
Yeah, I know most places are like that. Fortunately, I've got easy access to three local university FM stations that play real jazz, plus a large flagship NPR station with excellent local productions and news.
The advantage of radio for me is that it is free, available 24/7, and I can listen to it pretty much wherever I am.
Podcasts require me to buy an mp3 player, carry it with me wherever I go or buy several players to put in the car and in differnet places around the house, and then locate and collect the programming I want.
So far, I much prefer just turning on the radio to listen to the kind of music I know is going to be there.
I'm not questioning the validity of podcasting, just suggesting that programming and content are more important than technology.
To me, the advantage of radio is that stations exist that broadcast programming in specific formats. I can tune into these stations anytime and listen to programming that I enjoy.
For example, 3 FM stations exists within 25 miles of me that have 24/7 jazz formats. I'm a jazz fan, so that makes me happy.
I'm not aware of any podcast sources that provide comparable services. Podcasts require that I go out and find digital files I want and then set them up for play. I don't have the time to do that to build up a podcast playlist as lengthy as the one I can get just be turning on my radio.
There's no reason why someone couldn't hire a staff, pay them to create and collect podcasts and then broadcast them over AM or FM on a 24/7 format, but that would be very much the same as radio anyway.
While you're ranting, consider that you've made an outlandish claim that demands evidence. Am I supposed to agree that every government contract is awarded based on bribes just because some anonymous loon on Slashdot says so? Give me a break.
Listen, dweeb, I've had a government credit card and it didn't come from BofA. Sort of runs counter to your fantasies, doesn't it?
All your posts are simply moronic and outlandish claims. There's no reason anyone should give them any credence.
On the other hand, all I said was that the data loss will make things more difficult for BofA during the next recompete. If nothing else, the government employee on the hook for the program will want to make sure BofA doesn't drag him down again. (I've been involved in gov't recompetes, as a gov't employee. Have you?)
You're just a typical Slashdot blowhard. Your posts contain nothing but unsubstantiated claims and tinfoiled lies. Probably good enough for the gang in the dorm who also don't have the guts or the wits to use their brains, but not for the real world.
In other words, I don't believe anything you've posted because you've not given me any reason to believe you. Just a bunch of paranoid lies.
Democracy means majority rule. That's not equivalent to any given individual always doing whatever he wants to do. (That's anarchy.) Some people want to murder. They can't. Some people want to skip paying taxes. They can't. Why? Because the majority say they can't. Nothing undemocratic about that.
Democracy, at least the adult-land-owning-male version of it -- permitted slavery. So did the societies of Europe and Africa and the Middle East. Democracy ended slavery. Your point is irrelevant. You got a better idea than democracy?...you think that the USSR actually fell shows how dumb you are.
Ample evidence you are a trolling tinfoiled loon. Have you missed the last 14 years? Or do you think the KGB staged the entire thing? Hoo hah....are you going to tell me the colonies weren't totalitarian?
Of course I am. Because they weren't.
You're attempt to insult people who disagree with you are really lame, and totally ineffective.
I'm just conveying my impression of the typical poster on Slashdot. I picture them as dryg and alcohol addled adolescents akipping class to play some more games, conjuring fairy tales about life and history based ignorance, bias and racism. They wear their unwarranted cyncism like a badge of honer, unaware that the rest of us are laughing. Your posts just add more evidence.
I said BofA will need to address their data loss in the next recompete or the contract could go to someone else.
You said government contracts are determined by bribery, not performance, cost, etc.
Guess which statement is self-evident and which statement is an ignorant ideological rant that requires evidence before any rational person will consider it?
Since you're just another know-nothing blowhard who gets off on insulting people anonymously, you don't have any evidence.
Have you ever lived in such a place for a long enough time to find out why people don't rise up or do anything to bring down their gov't
They don't "rise up" because the states successfully represses them. That's the essence of a successful totalitarian state: the ability to prevent revolution. Only in states that have already begun to collapse and fail (such as the USSR and its Eastern European satellites) can a revolt be successful....because they just might value stability over anything else?
I'm sure the "stability" of eating tree bark is a rewarding experience. Your presumptions about how non-Westerners are content to live in conditions we would not tolerate are common these days among the ill-educated set and they are as racist and bigoted as the presumptions that justified slavery 200 years ago.
If the minority isn't protected from the whims of the majority, then democracy is clearly a sham
Wrong. The rights of the minority need to be respected and protected, but not at the cost of putting the majority at risk or of restricting the rights of the majority. Democracy does not mean letting anyone do whatever they wish, regardless of the damage is causes others. Sadly, that seems to be the common misconception of many people who hang around Slashdot. (In other words, it is the new whine of spoiled childred: "I can't do what I want! Stop being so undemocratic!")
Predictability, especially there, is a very desirable thing.
What does that mean? Is that "especially there" bit a racist slur about Koreans and the Chinese?
This also applies in China, Right? And North Korea?
A society's consensus, expressed in law, is the sum of individual decisions expressed in democratic elections. In totalitarian and authoritarian societies, such as China and the DPRK, democratic elections are not held. Therefore, the laws of those societies represent the consensus of their rulers, not of their people. Such a society will form their own consensus, but it will not be expressed in law because the very nature and survival of the governing regime requires that consensus to be suppressed.
Note, too, that my statement that individuals can't escape responsibility for violating a societal consensus is a statement of fact, not an ethical position.
A company's history rarely comes up. It's about whose pockets they lined.
Yes, it does. I know from my own experience. Past performance counts a great deal.
But, then I doubt you have a job, much less that you've ever been involved in contract negotiations with or for the government. Your just a silly adolescent poseur displaying your ignorance. I imagine you're expecially proud of that crack about bribes. I'm sure you have access to all kinds of information that the rest of us don't that substantiates that claim. Probably got it from your buddies in study hall.
...it's great that the 'state' broadcaster is always willing to challenge the government of the day...
No journalist should ever accept anything anyone tells him on faith. Neither should we.
But, then, it isn't the job of journalism to tell us the truth. It is the job of journalism to tell us what, e.g., Government Member A said, and then to also tell us what Other People said about that. Then, it is our job to decide where we think the truth rests.
In the end, there's not much to be preferred between a government that sometimes engages in deliberate deception and a media that produces news based on the premise the government is always being deceptive. Both manufacture the "truth" for our consumption.
I stand corrected. I lived in the UK some years ago, but details do fade from memory. I wander if they still have those vans that patrol looking for emissions from unlicensed tellies?
The BBC's domestic services are funded by a mandatory fee collected from anyone who purchases a TV or radio in the UK, whether or not the ever watch or listen to BBC. People who pay that fee certainly have a right to have Parliament determine how the BBC operates.
So, the BBC should be independent in the sense that it doesn't become the PR arm of the government of the day.
But, the BBC also needs to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting. Biased and partisan reporting destroy the single thing that has sustained the BBC's reputation all these years: trust.
But, as recents events indicate. lack of bias and impartiality are less a product of legislation and much more a product of the mindset and lack of standards of BBC employees.
Job satisfaction is a major indicator of expected lifespan. If your job is making you miserable, look elswhere.
So, if using MS products makes you miserable, move on.
But, first, take a good look and be certain it really is the job that's behind your misery. Perhaps an underlying reason exists, and the job misery is only an expression of that. For example, maybe the problem isn't being told to use MS tools' maybe the problem is simply how you react to being told to do anything.
To be honest, software distaste seems an unlikely reason to join the unemployment ranks. A lot of really worse things are going to happen to you during your career. Trust me. If you book it everytime you're ticked off, though, you won't have a career. ("I see here that you quit your last job because you didn't like the software your employer told you to use....")
Fundraisers know that not everyone who pledges actually follows through. I wouldn't expect any network to revive Enterprise based solely on promises to send money. Cash in the bank would be more persuasive.
No matter what, I don't think we'll ever see Trek again on UPN. The network decided last year that they don't want the kind of audience Trek attracts. So, for Enterprise, status quo meant cancellation.
Better to redirect any collected cash to independent production and syndication or to the SciFi Network.
I indicated houses are typically templated versions of a standard design. So are most software designs. I don't believe open source leads to a burgeoning of new design ideas.
Yes, I can grab code written by someone else and compile it. But that doesn't elminate the need for design and coding. They're just passed off to someone else. Knowing how to feed a file to a compiler doesn't make anyone much of anything.
Of course, lots of thing delay projects. I certainly did not say bad design and bad coding were the only causes.
Seems to me that carpentry remains an excellent metaphor for coding. Coders, like carpenters, use tools to build things. If they don't know how that "thing" is supposed to work and look (design), they're just winging it?
Would you spend a million bucks on a house that was built without blueprints?
Slashdot Mirror
The Shuttles were designed with hot-standby in mind.
What? It takes months to get a Shuttle prepared for launch. The only way to launch two Shuttles within a few weeks of each other is to begin launch preparations for both at the same time, months earlier. Remember, the Shuttle is not an operational vehicle. It has always remained a developmental and experimental vehiecle.
If the powers that be are THAT worried (which I'm not, we've done this several times before without incident)...
The fact is that we've lost one-half of the Shuttle fleet to catastrophic accidents. Whether or not we escaped disaster on previous Hubble missions is irrelevant today because the political climate surrounding the Shuttle program changed with the Columbia disaster.
As sad as I am about it, the shuttle is dead. I see little chance that it will be flying for much longer. My only hope is that it hangs on long enough to push for the new launch technologies.
You must have missed the news that there is a schedule for the Shuttle's decommissioning. My point is that another Shuttle launch would kill that program immediately. (Beyond that, I'd argue that the Shuttle, as designed a flown, has always been a pointless and missionless exercise. We built a truck but didn't pick a destination.)
It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.
And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.
Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind. The Hubble is a nice tool, but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science. Fixing it isn't worth the risk.
The media has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quality.
It isn't quality, it is behavior. If a Star employee acts and behaves like a reporter, then produces a story, that's journalism (regardless of what you or I might think of the story). If that employee sits at a desk and fabricates an entire story, that's not journalism.
I'm sure the Star's legal staff, or that of any supermarket tabloid, can fill in all the details.
Blogging is far too broad a term to use with precision. It simply means the act of publishing something -- anything -- on a blog.
Likewise, writing is far too broad a term to use with precision. Most of what is written and published is not journalism, regardless of where it is published.
Then there's this: all reporters are journalists, but not all journalists are reporters.
Here's the point: journalism and reporting are types of behavior, rather well-defined, that merit protection. It is irrelevant where the product of that behavior -- the writing -- is published. If it happens to be published in a blog, then it merits protection.
But, simply writing for a blog doesn't, by itself, merit protection, anymore than writing for a newspaper, by itself, merits protection.
That means that if the ThinkSecret guy engaged in something we'd recognize as reporting to get that sotry, then the court's decision should apply to any and all journalists, whether they publish in a blog or not.
what's the connection between trust and publishing in public? If a blogger says his boss is a corrupt toad stealing money from orphans, why is that statement more trustworthy than if it was made over a couple of beers in a bar? Lot's of people make mistakes and lie in public.
A blogger may expose his biases and influences on his blog, but that doesn't build trust. It just provides me an understanding of how I need to filter everything that blogger writes. That's the same process that clueful readers have always applied to the consumption of any news source.
I've got 3 FM stations playing the music I enjoy and one flagship NPR station giving me everything else. And I it's free.
I don't buy satellite radio for the same reason I don't buy anything more than basic cable: I looked at the programming and saw nothing I'd watch or listen.
Satellite radio couold carry a thousand formats and I wouldn't buy it if I didn'y want to listen to those 1000 formats.
The political fallout from a disaster during a Hubble repair mission is something NASA can't absorb. No risk analysis can act as a buffer between NASA and a disillusioned public and a Congress full of people looking for reasons to gut NASA.
O'Keefe's decision was a political decision made for political reasons. Choosing not to fly the Shuttle's most dangerous mission was the right decision in the aftermath of Columbia. Not a popular decision, but the right decision.
Risk analysis is an engineering tool, but leading NASA is not an engineering task.
Yeah, I know most places are like that. Fortunately, I've got easy access to three local university FM stations that play real jazz, plus a large flagship NPR station with excellent local productions and news.
The advantage of radio for me is that it is free, available 24/7, and I can listen to it pretty much wherever I am.
Podcasts require me to buy an mp3 player, carry it with me wherever I go or buy several players to put in the car and in differnet places around the house, and then locate and collect the programming I want.
So far, I much prefer just turning on the radio to listen to the kind of music I know is going to be there.
I'm not questioning the validity of podcasting, just suggesting that programming and content are more important than technology.
Radio's great when you're in the serviced demographic- if you're noti, it's a vast, staticy wasteland.
Agree, but the same applies to any medium. If someone doesn't make podcasts I want to listen to, I'm not going to listen.
I've checked into satellite radio but the programming is similar to what I can get free on local FM. Perhaps if/when I relocate.
To me, the advantage of radio is that stations exist that broadcast programming in specific formats. I can tune into these stations anytime and listen to programming that I enjoy.
For example, 3 FM stations exists within 25 miles of me that have 24/7 jazz formats. I'm a jazz fan, so that makes me happy.
I'm not aware of any podcast sources that provide comparable services. Podcasts require that I go out and find digital files I want and then set them up for play. I don't have the time to do that to build up a podcast playlist as lengthy as the one I can get just be turning on my radio.
There's no reason why someone couldn't hire a staff, pay them to create and collect podcasts and then broadcast them over AM or FM on a 24/7 format, but that would be very much the same as radio anyway.
While you're ranting, consider that you've made an outlandish claim that demands evidence. Am I supposed to agree that every government contract is awarded based on bribes just because some anonymous loon on Slashdot says so? Give me a break.
Listen, dweeb, I've had a government credit card and it didn't come from BofA. Sort of runs counter to your fantasies, doesn't it?
All your posts are simply moronic and outlandish claims. There's no reason anyone should give them any credence.
On the other hand, all I said was that the data loss will make things more difficult for BofA during the next recompete. If nothing else, the government employee on the hook for the program will want to make sure BofA doesn't drag him down again. (I've been involved in gov't recompetes, as a gov't employee. Have you?)
You're just a typical Slashdot blowhard. Your posts contain nothing but unsubstantiated claims and tinfoiled lies. Probably good enough for the gang in the dorm who also don't have the guts or the wits to use their brains, but not for the real world.
In other words, I don't believe anything you've posted because you've not given me any reason to believe you. Just a bunch of paranoid lies.
Democracy means majority rule. That's not equivalent to any given individual always doing whatever he wants to do. (That's anarchy.) Some people want to murder. They can't. Some people want to skip paying taxes. They can't. Why? Because the majority say they can't. Nothing undemocratic about that.
...you think that the USSR actually fell shows how dumb you are.
...are you going to tell me the colonies weren't totalitarian?
Democracy, at least the adult-land-owning-male version of it -- permitted slavery. So did the societies of Europe and Africa and the Middle East. Democracy ended slavery. Your point is irrelevant. You got a better idea than democracy?
Ample evidence you are a trolling tinfoiled loon. Have you missed the last 14 years? Or do you think the KGB staged the entire thing? Hoo hah.
Of course I am. Because they weren't.
You're attempt to insult people who disagree with you are really lame, and totally ineffective.
I'm just conveying my impression of the typical poster on Slashdot. I picture them as dryg and alcohol addled adolescents akipping class to play some more games, conjuring fairy tales about life and history based ignorance, bias and racism. They wear their unwarranted cyncism like a badge of honer, unaware that the rest of us are laughing. Your posts just add more evidence.
I said BofA will need to address their data loss in the next recompete or the contract could go to someone else.
You said government contracts are determined by bribery, not performance, cost, etc.
Guess which statement is self-evident and which statement is an ignorant ideological rant that requires evidence before any rational person will consider it?
Since you're just another know-nothing blowhard who gets off on insulting people anonymously, you don't have any evidence.
Have you ever lived in such a place for a long enough time to find out why people don't rise up or do anything to bring down their gov't
...because they just might value stability over anything else?
They don't "rise up" because the states successfully represses them. That's the essence of a successful totalitarian state: the ability to prevent revolution. Only in states that have already begun to collapse and fail (such as the USSR and its Eastern European satellites) can a revolt be successful.
I'm sure the "stability" of eating tree bark is a rewarding experience. Your presumptions about how non-Westerners are content to live in conditions we would not tolerate are common these days among the ill-educated set and they are as racist and bigoted as the presumptions that justified slavery 200 years ago.
If the minority isn't protected from the whims of the majority, then democracy is clearly a sham
Wrong. The rights of the minority need to be respected and protected, but not at the cost of putting the majority at risk or of restricting the rights of the majority. Democracy does not mean letting anyone do whatever they wish, regardless of the damage is causes others. Sadly, that seems to be the common misconception of many people who hang around Slashdot. (In other words, it is the new whine of spoiled childred: "I can't do what I want! Stop being so undemocratic!")
Predictability, especially there, is a very desirable thing.
What does that mean? Is that "especially there" bit a racist slur about Koreans and the Chinese?
Sure, no-bid contracts exist. But the government, not the business, determines which contract is no-bid.
You need evidence to back up your claim (bribes determine contract awardees). I don't.
This also applies in China, Right? And North Korea?
A society's consensus, expressed in law, is the sum of individual decisions expressed in democratic elections. In totalitarian and authoritarian societies, such as China and the DPRK, democratic elections are not held. Therefore, the laws of those societies represent the consensus of their rulers, not of their people. Such a society will form their own consensus, but it will not be expressed in law because the very nature and survival of the governing regime requires that consensus to be suppressed.
Note, too, that my statement that individuals can't escape responsibility for violating a societal consensus is a statement of fact, not an ethical position.
A company's history rarely comes up. It's about whose pockets they lined.
Yes, it does. I know from my own experience. Past performance counts a great deal.
But, then I doubt you have a job, much less that you've ever been involved in contract negotiations with or for the government. Your just a silly adolescent poseur displaying your ignorance. I imagine you're expecially proud of that crack about bribes. I'm sure you have access to all kinds of information that the rest of us don't that substantiates that claim. Probably got it from your buddies in study hall.
...it's great that the 'state' broadcaster is always willing to challenge the government of the day...
No journalist should ever accept anything anyone tells him on faith. Neither should we.
But, then, it isn't the job of journalism to tell us the truth. It is the job of journalism to tell us what, e.g., Government Member A said, and then to also tell us what Other People said about that. Then, it is our job to decide where we think the truth rests.
In the end, there's not much to be preferred between a government that sometimes engages in deliberate deception and a media that produces news based on the premise the government is always being deceptive. Both manufacture the "truth" for our consumption.
I stand corrected. I lived in the UK some years ago, but details do fade from memory. I wander if they still have those vans that patrol looking for emissions from unlicensed tellies?
Don't confuse "independent" with "impartial".
The BBC's domestic services are funded by a mandatory fee collected from anyone who purchases a TV or radio in the UK, whether or not the ever watch or listen to BBC. People who pay that fee certainly have a right to have Parliament determine how the BBC operates.
So, the BBC should be independent in the sense that it doesn't become the PR arm of the government of the day.
But, the BBC also needs to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting. Biased and partisan reporting destroy the single thing that has sustained the BBC's reputation all these years: trust.
But, as recents events indicate. lack of bias and impartiality are less a product of legislation and much more a product of the mindset and lack of standards of BBC employees.
Job satisfaction is a major indicator of expected lifespan. If your job is making you miserable, look elswhere.
So, if using MS products makes you miserable, move on.
But, first, take a good look and be certain it really is the job that's behind your misery. Perhaps an underlying reason exists, and the job misery is only an expression of that. For example, maybe the problem isn't being told to use MS tools' maybe the problem is simply how you react to being told to do anything.
To be honest, software distaste seems an unlikely reason to join the unemployment ranks. A lot of really worse things are going to happen to you during your career. Trust me. If you book it everytime you're ticked off, though, you won't have a career. ("I see here that you quit your last job because you didn't like the software your employer told you to use....")
Pledges are great, cash is better.
Fundraisers know that not everyone who pledges actually follows through. I wouldn't expect any network to revive Enterprise based solely on promises to send money. Cash in the bank would be more persuasive.
No matter what, I don't think we'll ever see Trek again on UPN. The network decided last year that they don't want the kind of audience Trek attracts. So, for Enterprise, status quo meant cancellation.
Better to redirect any collected cash to independent production and syndication or to the SciFi Network.
I indicated houses are typically templated versions of a standard design. So are most software designs. I don't believe open source leads to a burgeoning of new design ideas.
Yes, I can grab code written by someone else and compile it. But that doesn't elminate the need for design and coding. They're just passed off to someone else. Knowing how to feed a file to a compiler doesn't make anyone much of anything.
Of course, lots of thing delay projects. I certainly did not say bad design and bad coding were the only causes.
Seems to me that carpentry remains an excellent metaphor for coding. Coders, like carpenters, use tools to build things. If they don't know how that "thing" is supposed to work and look (design), they're just winging it?
Would you spend a million bucks on a house that was built without blueprints?