These technical problems are typical of premature deployments of immature software, inadequate design time, understaffing, unrealistic deadlines, etc. oh, my head is beginning to hurt! This is too much like my last 18 projects in government development...
Awww. Not so threatening, eh? I was hoping the TSA would go for the whole data collection tamale. Think what happens when the US Gov tries to build a newly designed, big, complex system -- bidding by defense contractors is long, drawn-out, and then it is challenged and redone; the contractor that finally wins takes forever to complete it, if ever; if the contractor actually manages to build something, it's completely unusable; in disgust, the govt throws it away and starts the cycle again with more bidding. Just ask the FAA, LOL!
Therefore urge TSA not to compromise their standards, fellow/.ers. That way we'll have no data collection, ever.
The American government will not, indeed cannot, actively monitor the terabytes of data this act will generate. They are far too busy just trying to keep their collective heads above water. Ten years of "peace dividend" has taken its toll in staff reductions, atrophied skills, no operations, and no training. Do you remember the mid 90s when several U.S. congressmen questioned whether we even needed the CIA and other intelligence organizations?
I expect that the resulting database will not useful for finding terrorists in real time. However, once a suspected terrorist is known by other means, be it hours, days, weeks, or months later, they will be able to search through the data for his or her trail to provide proof or refutation, as appropriate. Better yet, the search should also show the tie-ins to the others of a terrorist's organization so we can pursue the whole lot.
This kind of trade-off between increasing security at the price of privacy is a good one, IMO, and has has commonly been made in times of war for at least the last 200 years. That said, the trade-off is still a risk. We must remain vigilant and pick our government leaders carefully so that those in power will dismantle the process when the threat is over. It could otherwise become the means of terrible abuse.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit. (Mighty is the truth, and it will prevail)
Right on! One of the traits that people who advance the state of the engineering arts is a fearless optimism that isn't echoed by their community. The Mids are operating in the finest tradition of American inventors. Remember Fulton's folly? How about some of the pre-Wright brothers flight experiments? Even if they fail, we'll learn something about the longevity and reliability that this approach can produce. Combine the lessons learned here with those of the similar approach NASA is using for its Mars missions and we may have something worth emulating and incorporating in the project development process.
The mids have really thought outside the box. I'm proud of them.
I don't normally trash others' work, but this article on the rate and impact of invention in the first half of the century versus the second half cries for response. Bear with me while I lay some groundwork.
First, I question the implicit assumption that innovation can or should proceed at a uniform rate. Progress by fits and starts seems a better description.
Second, the author analyzes his subject in only a single dimension, which not only provides little insight but even misleads him to an incorrect conclusion. Each change can be placed in a multi-dimensional state space described by (at least) the axes listed below. Each axis has an effect on the change's overall importance. Each change should be considered with respect to:
- an innovation spectrum that moves from refinement to without-precedent
- dependence on an underlying infrastructure (e.g. telephone, electrical appliances, automobiles)
- new potential for future innovation, i.e. enabling technology (e.g. electricity and gene splicing)
- the scope of the parent problem that spawned the change
- the impact of the parent problem that spawned the change
- its efficiency factor (the time taken to travel to and from a place by aircraft as opposed to walking)
- its multiplication factor (e.g. My new steam-driven tractor gives me the pulling power of 18 horses. I can now pull stumps out of the ground directly without borrowing all my neighbors' teams. I think I'll clear a new field!)
- its "new ground" factor, i.e. its ability to solve previously insoluble problems (e.g. antibiotics such as sulfa and penecillin)
- its side-effects
Finally, the commentary. As an area matures, the changes begin popping up in a different part of its state space. The rate of radical innovation goes down. The rate refinement goes up. The impact of later changes is less than those of earlier changes, yet there remains a non-zero impact. We are in such a time now and have been for a while.
I believe we are now at the threshold of a new round of significant innovations. The enabling technology and infrastructure is computers, networking, and information repositories. It is complete enough to be useful now, and we are beginning to see paradigm changes based on it. E-commerce and teleworking are example experiments.
We see glimmerings of the next enabling technology. It is based on the biological sciences and genetic manipulation. I wonder where it will lead?
Of all the idiocy... whoever thought this one up has not thought it through. Tablets are as useful for main input as a mouse is for drawing. It works, but not well. On the other hand, tablets work very well for drawing! Maybe Apple is appealing to the artsy craftsy crowd again? Keyboard skills are not hard to develop. My daughter reached 30 WPM after 6 weeks, which is my WAG for the cross-over point where keyboard input becomes more convienient than writing. To test for yourself the practicality of writing recognition as your main computer input, try this: first, type a dense page of text and note the elapsed time. Next, write the same page of text and note the elapsed time. Use printing or cursive writing, your choice. Be mindful that writing on a tablet will be no faster. Notice how much slower and more frustrating writing is (if you have half-decent keboard skills)?
Common interests, common purpose, common vision... it still sounds like Walden to me.
A community is a heterogeneous collection of individuals. Human nature intrudes too much to create the idealistic VC. I would even go so far as to say that if your VC is working, then you have a narrow and selective subset of humanity -- a balkanization of our civilization, if you will.
Now this hybrid idea is interesting - a new dimension to an existing physical community. It has possibilities when members travel. How do you anticipate this dimension would be employed, given the bulk of interaction will be physical?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that explains a lot when combined with Microsoft's extensive usability testing of their software products.
"So what are we doing tonight, Bill?"
"Same thing we do every night, Steve. Try to take over the WORLD!!!"
These technical problems are typical of premature deployments of immature software, inadequate design time, understaffing, unrealistic deadlines, etc. oh, my head is beginning to hurt! This is too much like my last 18 projects in government development ...
I always wondered what Sesame Street would be like if Monty Python bought them!
Awww. Not so threatening, eh? I was hoping the TSA would go for the whole data collection tamale. Think what happens when the US Gov tries to build a newly designed, big, complex system -- bidding by defense contractors is long, drawn-out, and then it is challenged and redone; the contractor that finally wins takes forever to complete it, if ever; if the contractor actually manages to build something, it's completely unusable; in disgust, the govt throws it away and starts the cycle again with more bidding. Just ask the FAA, LOL!
/.ers. That way we'll have no data collection, ever.
Therefore urge TSA not to compromise their standards, fellow
The happy sound of Borg kids helping each other train their pattern recognition systems -- "I spy, with my little eye piece ..."
The American government will not, indeed cannot, actively monitor the terabytes of data this act will generate. They are far too busy just trying to keep their collective heads above water. Ten years of "peace dividend" has taken its toll in staff reductions, atrophied skills, no operations, and no training. Do you remember the mid 90s when several U.S. congressmen questioned whether we even needed the CIA and other intelligence organizations?
I expect that the resulting database will not useful for finding terrorists in real time. However, once a suspected terrorist is known by other means, be it hours, days, weeks, or months later, they will be able to search through the data for his or her trail to provide proof or refutation, as appropriate. Better yet, the search should also show the tie-ins to the others of a terrorist's organization so we can pursue the whole lot.
This kind of trade-off between increasing security at the price of privacy is a good one, IMO, and has has commonly been made in times of war for at least the last 200 years. That said, the trade-off is still a risk. We must remain vigilant and pick our government leaders carefully so that those in power will dismantle the process when the threat is over. It could otherwise become the means of terrible abuse.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
(Mighty is the truth, and it will prevail)
just like the Mids themselves! Innovative, able to go on with next to no budget, fiercely determined ...
but I wonder if in the presence of more senior satellites (which is nearly all of them) it drops everything it is doing and stands rigidly vertical?
Right on! One of the traits that people who advance the state of the engineering arts is a fearless optimism that isn't echoed by their community. The Mids are operating in the finest tradition of American inventors. Remember Fulton's folly? How about some of the pre-Wright brothers flight experiments? Even if they fail, we'll learn something about the longevity and reliability that this approach can produce. Combine the lessons learned here with those of the similar approach NASA is using for its Mars missions and we may have something worth emulating and incorporating in the project development process.
The mids have really thought outside the box. I'm proud of them.
I don't normally trash others' work, but this article on the rate and impact of invention in the first half of the century versus the second half cries for response. Bear with me while I lay some groundwork.
First, I question the implicit assumption that innovation can or should proceed at a uniform rate. Progress by fits and starts seems a better description.
Second, the author analyzes his subject in only a single dimension, which not only provides little insight but even misleads him to an incorrect conclusion. Each change can be placed in a multi-dimensional state space described by (at least) the axes listed below. Each axis has an effect on the change's overall importance. Each change should be considered with respect to:
- an innovation spectrum that moves from refinement to without-precedent
- dependence on an underlying infrastructure (e.g. telephone, electrical appliances, automobiles)
- new potential for future innovation, i.e. enabling technology (e.g. electricity and gene splicing)
- the scope of the parent problem that spawned the change
- the impact of the parent problem that spawned the change
- its efficiency factor (the time taken to travel to and from a place by aircraft as opposed to walking)
- its multiplication factor (e.g. My new steam-driven tractor gives me the pulling power of 18 horses. I can now pull stumps out of the ground directly without borrowing all my neighbors' teams. I think I'll clear a new field!)
- its "new ground" factor, i.e. its ability to solve previously insoluble problems (e.g. antibiotics such as sulfa and penecillin)
- its side-effects
Finally, the commentary. As an area matures, the changes begin popping up in a different part of its state space. The rate of radical innovation goes down. The rate refinement goes up. The impact of later changes is less than those of earlier changes, yet there remains a non-zero impact. We are in such a time now and have been for a while.
I believe we are now at the threshold of a new round of significant innovations. The enabling technology and infrastructure is computers, networking, and information repositories. It is complete enough to be useful now, and we are beginning to see paradigm changes based on it. E-commerce and teleworking are example experiments.
We see glimmerings of the next enabling technology. It is based on the biological sciences and genetic manipulation. I wonder where it will lead?
Of all the idiocy ... whoever thought this one up has not thought it through. Tablets are as useful for main input as a mouse is for drawing. It works, but not well. On the other hand, tablets work very well for drawing! Maybe Apple is appealing to the artsy craftsy crowd again? Keyboard skills are not hard to develop. My daughter reached 30 WPM after 6 weeks, which is my WAG for the cross-over point where keyboard input becomes more convienient than writing. To test for yourself the practicality of writing recognition as your main computer input, try this: first, type a dense page of text and note the elapsed time. Next, write the same page of text and note the elapsed time. Use printing or cursive writing, your choice. Be mindful that writing on a tablet will be no faster. Notice how much slower and more frustrating writing is (if you have half-decent keboard skills)?
Common interests, common purpose, common vision ... it still sounds like Walden to me.
A community is a heterogeneous collection of individuals. Human nature intrudes too much to create the idealistic VC. I would even go so far as to say that if your VC is working, then you have a narrow and selective subset of humanity -- a balkanization of our civilization, if you will.
Now this hybrid idea is interesting - a new dimension to an existing physical community. It has possibilities when members travel. How do you anticipate this dimension would be employed, given the bulk of interaction will be physical?