Hey, there are some other great examples of
"alternative systems to capitalism"
producing high quality technology.
Like the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the Great Pyramids. In fact, it would seem that for most of history the predominate "system" was enslaving tens of thousands and working them to death in order to create your technological marvel. Who knows how it really was, but I suspect the Soviet system was a bit closer to that end of the spectrum than to our "capitalism" end. You might be able to argue that it is effective, but you're not likely to convince many that it's right or even a good way to get things done.
I hereby patent the process by which a individual person, by using their skills, experience, and innate creative talent comes up with a new idea, process, or invention.
By definition, any patentable idea is new and hence falls under my patent.
There have been so many great ideas here, so many creative people.
Basically they are claiming a patent for a content management system, a la Vignette, Broadvision, Allair Spectra and a host of others. So many companies are clamoring to get into this space (including MS with their weak Site Server product) that I think it's safe to say that it's obvious.
On this point it is important to differentiate between training and education.
While you can certainly go out and get training for the tech skill du jour in a few weeks and get yourself a job, you should not delude yourself into thinking that you now have an education.
Training is limited learning on how to perform a specific task.
Education is general knowledge of many subjects, developed skills in the processes of learning, thought, and reasoning. Understanding of self, and of the cultural and historical contexts in which we exist.
And education in a particular discipline, such as computer science, implies and a broad understanding of its fields of study, underlying principles, and the important figures and stages in the history of its development. And for something like programming, which is part science, part art, it implies a certain level of skill and an understanding of quality and the process by which quality is achieved.
Of course, there is significant value to an education beyond how it applies to your job. But let's focus for the moment on how it affects your value as an employee.
Many companies hire (or contract) to fill an immediate need for a specific skill. But that's not how all jobs are filled.
In my hiring experience I've usually been trying to build a talented team, with breath and depth of knowledge and skill, that can not only use the current technology but can adapt to the next one and the one after that.
People who have a good education in computer science inevitably become more valuable, as they can foresee problems before they emerge, understand how different technologies interact, and quickly learn and assess new technologies through a more thorough understanding of the principles that make them possible. Hence they are more valuable today and much more likely to stay valuable in the long run.
So, if you can, by all means get a real education.
That said, a university is not the only place to get an education. But it is certainly the easiest one. Many people succeed in educating themselves independently, but it is not an easy thing to do.
I should qualify my original suggestions. When I say "cheap" and "simple" I mean by NASA standards. I don't mean send $10 Radio Shack gizmos.
You make a good point that they have to be sturdy, able to handle space, low temperatures, radiation, Mars conditions, debris, etc. Then they have to communicate, be mobile, have info collection capabilities, and power gereration.
So I'm not saying this is something easy. What I'm saying is that it is possible, and it's the direction NASA research should be moving in. Anything they design could be mass produced at a fraction of the cost of the first.
You've got to admit, with all the expense of design and transportation of the mars rover it sucks that we only get to see and explore mars as long as that one machine works, then it's all over. Wouldn't it be great to have dozens of them? Pathfinder lasted ~three months. Was that a short, average, or long lifespan? We'll never know.
Your analogy of 3000 palms vs an Enterprise server does not really apply. The task at hand is not a computation intensive task, it's a data collection and communications task. Which would help 3000 explorers mapping the amazon more, 3000 satelite phones or a Sun Enterprise server?
And the redundancy is key. You lose your Enterprise server and you're dead. You lose half of your multitude of probes and you still collect a ton of data.
I've thought for a long time, ever since NASA started this "smaller, lower cost" strategy, that they had the right idea but didn't take it far enough.
What they need is two or three rockets to go to mars and release a few dozen small communication relay satelites and several hundred (thousand?)surface probes, which can talk to any of the satelites. I'm talking about *real* redundancy, not just "let's send a backup".
As has been previously pointed out, a huge majority of the cost is in the development of the technology, not the actual construction of the equipment. So develop something that can be produced on a larger scale. Maybe half will fail, but the ones that give us information will give us lots. And we'll have the option of sending more, improved, satelites and probes that can interact with the existing ones.
And, as you make the equipment smaller you gain all kinds of advantages. What if we can send a four ounce probe that is mobile and can talk to the satelite? The task of landing a four ouncer gently is orders of magnitude easier than landing a twenty pounder gently. (I don't actually know how much that thing weighed, but you get the idea.) A look at our cell phone technology tells you these things are possible, and that's not even getting into the nano possibilites.
A three tier system might be even more advantageous: A few dozen satelites, a hundred stationary surface relays that can talk to the satelites, and 20,000 tiny surface probes that only need to talk to a surface relay yards away.
There are so many possibilities, if only they'd get a little creative. When we were all watching the exploits of the mars rover, and then it died, I thought, why didn't they just send a dozen? This seems so obvious to me that frankly I'm surprised NASA didn't go down this road years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, there are some other great examples of "alternative systems to capitalism" producing high quality technology.
Like the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the Great Pyramids. In fact, it would seem that for most of history the predominate "system" was enslaving tens of thousands and working them to death in order to create your technological marvel. Who knows how it really was, but I suspect the Soviet system was a bit closer to that end of the spectrum than to our "capitalism" end. You might be able to argue that it is effective, but you're not likely to convince many that it's right or even a good way to get things done.
I hereby patent the process by which a individual person, by using their skills, experience, and innate creative talent comes up with a new idea, process, or invention.
By definition, any patentable idea is new and hence falls under my patent.
There have been so many great ideas here, so many creative people.
Pls send your patent fees to me forthwith.
Basically they are claiming a patent for a content management system, a la Vignette, Broadvision, Allair Spectra and a host of others. So many companies are clamoring to get into this space (including MS with their weak Site Server product) that I think it's safe to say that it's obvious.
On this point it is important to differentiate between training and education.
While you can certainly go out and get training for the tech skill du jour in a few weeks and get yourself a job, you should not delude yourself into thinking that you now have an education.
Training is limited learning on how to perform a specific task.
Education is general knowledge of many subjects, developed skills in the processes of learning, thought, and reasoning. Understanding of self, and of the cultural and historical contexts in which we exist.
And education in a particular discipline, such as computer science, implies and a broad understanding of its fields of study, underlying principles, and the important figures and stages in the history of its development. And for something like programming, which is part science, part art, it implies a certain level of skill and an understanding of quality and the process by which quality is achieved.
Of course, there is significant value to an education beyond how it applies to your job. But let's focus for the moment on how it affects your value as an employee.
Many companies hire (or contract) to fill an immediate need for a specific skill. But that's not how all jobs are filled.
In my hiring experience I've usually been trying to build a talented team, with breath and depth of knowledge and skill, that can not only use the current technology but can adapt to the next one and the one after that.
People who have a good education in computer science inevitably become more valuable, as they can foresee problems before they emerge, understand how different technologies interact, and quickly learn and assess new technologies through a more thorough understanding of the principles that make them possible. Hence they are more valuable today and much more likely to stay valuable in the long run.
So, if you can, by all means get a real education.
That said, a university is not the only place to get an education. But it is certainly the easiest one. Many people succeed in educating themselves independently, but it is not an easy thing to do.
I should qualify my original suggestions. When I say "cheap" and "simple" I mean by NASA standards. I don't mean send $10 Radio Shack gizmos.
You make a good point that they have to be sturdy, able to handle space, low temperatures, radiation, Mars conditions, debris, etc. Then they have to communicate, be mobile, have info collection capabilities, and power gereration.
So I'm not saying this is something easy. What I'm saying is that it is possible, and it's the direction NASA research should be moving in. Anything they design could be mass produced at a fraction of the cost of the first.
You've got to admit, with all the expense of design and transportation of the mars rover it sucks that we only get to see and explore mars as long as that one machine works, then it's all over. Wouldn't it be great to have dozens of them? Pathfinder lasted ~three months. Was that a short, average, or long lifespan? We'll never know.
Your analogy of 3000 palms vs an Enterprise server does not really apply. The task at hand is not a computation intensive task, it's a data collection and communications task. Which would help 3000 explorers mapping the amazon more, 3000 satelite phones or a Sun Enterprise server?
And the redundancy is key. You lose your Enterprise server and you're dead. You lose half of your multitude of probes and you still collect a ton of data.
I've thought for a long time, ever since NASA started this "smaller, lower cost" strategy, that they had the right idea but didn't take it far enough.
What they need is two or three rockets to go to mars and release a few dozen small communication relay satelites and several hundred (thousand?)surface probes, which can talk to any of the satelites. I'm talking about *real* redundancy, not just "let's send a backup".
As has been previously pointed out, a huge majority of the cost is in the development of the technology, not the actual construction of the equipment. So develop something that can be produced on a larger scale. Maybe half will fail, but the ones that give us information will give us lots. And we'll have the option of sending more, improved, satelites and probes that can interact with the existing ones.
And, as you make the equipment smaller you gain all kinds of advantages. What if we can send a four ounce probe that is mobile and can talk to the satelite? The task of landing a four ouncer gently is orders of magnitude easier than landing a twenty pounder gently. (I don't actually know how much that thing weighed, but you get the idea.) A look at our cell phone technology tells you these things are possible, and that's not even getting into the nano possibilites.
A three tier system might be even more advantageous: A few dozen satelites, a hundred stationary surface relays that can talk to the satelites, and 20,000 tiny surface probes that only need to talk to a surface relay yards away.
There are so many possibilities, if only they'd get a little creative. When we were all watching the exploits of the mars rover, and then it died, I thought, why didn't they just send a dozen? This seems so obvious to me that frankly I'm surprised NASA didn't go down this road years ago.