Besides, I've always believed that the only really vital goal of space exploration is to eventually set up permanent manned colonies. Robots can assist in gathering information and manage the prep work. But if you ever want to get all our eggs out of this one little basket then you'll have to send people out there sooner or later. We might as well get ready.
OK, I wonder about this everytime I see a similar statement, so now I'm going to ask. What's the big deal with "getting our eggs out of this basket?" Species emerge and become extinct all the time. Why do people think humans will be any different? I guess the thing that really puzzles me is why anyone worries about the fate of the nebulous "human race." You and your loved ones will be long dead. If the sun goes nova, the ones on outer colonies will surive, but those here on Earth are dead, anyway, so it can't just be compassion for fellow beings.
So someone tell me why it's so important that humanity not die out?
The basic issue is changing requirements. A contractor building high-rise apartments does not have to worry about the customer coming around when it's half built to look at it and say, "You know, I think I want a hospital instead." Programmers quite often have to deal with customers that are just about that confused -- they can't begin figuring out what they really want until they see what they asked for on the screen.
Is it really so hard to just tell your customer "we can do that, but it will cost you?" I have found that it's easy to say this, but most people don't cause they're (a) afraid of the customer's reaction, or (b) too proud, so they think "I can do all that and still meet the deadline." Then they usually start falling behind on the project! My experience has been that when I tell someone what the new feature will cost in terms of time or reliability and leave the decision up to them, the response is usually an intelligent one. Customers by and large are not stupid, but they do need to be educated (by us, the developers) about the ramifications of the decisions they make.
Before this, I was a hardware engineer. Trust me, people change requirements for physical as well as logical designs. The proper way to handle changing requirements is pretty much the same, regardless of project types.
Big buisness can't afford that. If a bad programers turns in some working, but bad code we use it because time it money. Our good programers are better used to devolpe some new feature that can sell, not re-write the bad parts. the only exception is after service costs prove the bad code is costing more money to maintian than a re-write would cost.
But this *is* the problem. It will cost more to fix the problem after product release than before. There are years of software lifecycle data to show that. That's why we conduct code reviews at work. Ideally, your good programmers should not be fixing the work of bad programmers. But if at least some of their time can be used to point out the flaws, the bad programmers can become better; those that won't should just be axed.
Commercial software is generally built by putting everyone together in a single location and treating all the developers as roughly equivalent and able to work on any part of the system. The result is a monolithic heap of code.
Open source software OTOH is built by widely separated people with narrow bandwidth links between each other and only a shared vision of the Right Thing to guide them. The result, as predicted by Conway's law, tends to be highly modular architectures focussed around a few core protocols or APIs that capture the vision.
Man, if I had any moderator points left, I'd mod you way the hell up! As a graduate software engineering student, I would be interested in seeing what came of the commercial/OSS coupling/cohesion comparisons. Even if you're wrong it's still shows good insight.
What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM),
I'm one of those weird people who rarely purchase anything other than food and other necessities. I don't want consumer advertising targeted at me. When I need to know about something, I will research it and get a much more balanced view than any advertiser dares give me. In the rare case when there is a completely new product that I might want to know about, I 'll probably come across a product review in a magazine, or website that I frequent. If I don't it's not a big deal.
The only form of targetted marketing I can think of that I have ever found beneficial is from vendors that specialize in narrow areas and that I have previously done business with. Even Amazon, who knows my purchase history, has rarely shown me anything I'm interested in in their Suggestions. Too much generalization in their categories.
Moving to mainstream??? I am not sure about the rest of the people here but I have certainly never heard of the Sundance Channel before I read this post. Sundance Film Festival yes but not the channel. Does anyone here acutally get the Sundance Channel with their cable?
Are you kidding? 90% of the reason I got dish network was for Sundance and IFC (Independent Film Channel)
Not trying to be argumentative, but can't programming duplicate random bad luck just as easily?
I mean if random chance is the only difference between virtual and real (I know it's not but in the scope of this debate it is), that's still not striking me as a sound argument marking real world robots as a better option.
Just playing devil's advocate, just seems to me that having complete control over the physics of the world would permit more variants/options in testing than real world mechanics.
Sure you can add things to simulate some aspects of reality (and I have tried this), but by definition, you can never *completely* simulate reality. The real issue is how can you possibly know everything that might affect the robots' predator/prey relationship? In hindsight, many details that may have been considered insignificant, turn out to be important and vice versa. If you are studying the robots operations under a very limited set of conditions, you can get away with it, but to get useful information about interactions in the real world, a researcher would be fooling him/her self if he thought a simulated space would suffice.
Rod Brooks makes a pretty good point of this in his Creature Architectures paper and goes so far as to suggest that robots in simulated worlds are essentially useless.
Why not just hack up a x proggie that does the above, run it as a screen saver or something. Far far cheaper for two pixels to reproduce and create another data structure than to actually build machinery to do it. Personally, seems to me they're doing with this robots just for the eye candy factor (cuz it'll attract better money). If they really wanted to explore evolution, driving pixels would be more efficient all around
It would be more cost efficient, but a lot of useful data might be lost. Robots that must interact with the real world have to deal with the messiness and uncertainty that it entails. e.g, a predator robot can lose track of its prey due to a faulty sensor, or an interfering signal, or its wheels might slip on the floor, thus allowing hte prey to escape. None of these would be present in the simulated world of the program you are suggesting. There's more to research with physical robots than "eye candy."
What's so important about the survival of our species? (an honest question, I've never really thought about it much myself)
I've wondered the same thing when people here make that statement. Hey, if a rock slams into Earth and I and my loved ones are dead, why do I give a rat's ass that a few million humans are living on Mars? I'm still *dead*, nothing changes that.
I see it as equivalent to saying, "Well, I fell in front of a bus yesterday and am now a big wet spot, but it's OK: there are still billions of other humans alive to keep the species going,"
There is one simple reason that everyone seems to be missing. And it's the reason I don't have and probably never will have, a Tivo: I really don't want to watch more TV. Everyone keeps gushing about how great it is, how they finally can watch more of the shows they like, etc. Well, guess what: like so many people, I only watch TV as pretty much a last resort. Sure, there are a few shows I like, but nothing I mind if I miss. I'd rather be hanging out with a friend, riding my bike (when it's not winter in MN!) messing around online, working on an art project, or some electronic project, or just reading a book. TV is what I do when I just want to veg out, or I'm too lazy to move. If there is nothing worth watching on, half the time it just inspires me to get up off the couch and find something more interesting to do.
I can appreciate that Tivo is a well designed product, but face it, everyone does not want to watch more TV!!!
What you are suggesting is not at all unusual. Outside the tech fields, most people do not end up working in a field directly related to their degree. Even within the tech field, I know Mechanical Engineers who do Software or Digital Design, Physicists and 2 Chemists writing software, etc.
In my own case, my undergraduate degree is EE. I designed Analog & Digital (H/W) interfaces for PCs and some embedded systems for about 10 years before deciding to focus on embedded software development only. I've almost completed a Masters in Software Engineering and these days the only hardware I develop is personal projects in my basement.
My suggestion: just pay the alarm company. You get the benefits many have listed and *some* piece of mind. I have woken up at 2 am to blaring sirens and my house filled with smoke (was still a smoldering log in fireplace and flue was closed). The fire dept had already been dispatched before the alarm service even called to verify the alarm from the smoke/heat detector(they were called back before they arrived here).
What you might want to do, though, is see if you can tap into their sensors and monitor those from the web. Talk to your installer: once I told the guy checking my system (the previous owner had it installed) that I was an EE, he went into all the details of the system and answered all my technical questions.
You can't guarantee safety with *any* measure you take, but you can take a number of steps to *increase* it. Good external locks, smoke & CO detectors, and get to know your neighbors.
There are a number of skills I wish that I had acquired before I went out into the wider world. I would have liked a course on getting a job. It could have included:
Resume writing
Researching companies as potential employers
Interviewing skills
My undergrad alma mater (and I'm sure many other colleges) did indeed teach this kind of stuff, but not as part of the curriculum: they were optional short tutorial classes held after normal school hours for seniors.
I'm currently an MS student at a midwestern Univ also, I'm sure I've seen bulletin board postings for resume writing and interviewing skills. Though having been in the workforce for 13 years, I think I know enough to get by.
I agree with the other poster who said that university is not a trade school. But at the same time, there should be some assistance with making the transition from the academic to the working world.
Re:Beauty for beauty's sake makes crappy software
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
We lack a metric of complexity. So I'll submit this: By the rule of mediocrity, "on average, everybody is equally stupid", we must say that software is more complex then bridge-building, because we know how to build good bridges. It's been a while since I've heard of a bridge honest-to-goodness failing from something other then lack of designed maintenence. Software, on the other hand, is still problematic and
I don't think it's that software is that much more intrinsically difficult than bridge design, but rather that we know how to manage the complexity of bridge design and are still learning to manage the complexity of software.
We build medical instruments and I think I can claim that our embedded software products are useful and reliable. They *have* to be. And having produced over 250kloc on this project so far, I have to say that complex software design really isn't as difficult as people seem to think. On our team, we all have electrical engineering backgrounds, so perhaps that process of "design first, code later" is ingrained from years of making mistakes:-)10+ hour days are very rare around here and we meet our deadlines. Bugs are caught quickly and usually not at all difficult to fix. Bottom line: when this product ships, I will feel confident enough to have it used to diagnose me!
... but if you can't do that: well, the graphic artists at my last job had mobiles, bean bag chairs and tropical fish in their cubes. Made for a more fun work environment.
We produce software for embedded devices, and code reviews are definitely useful and an expected part of our development process (we make medical instruments, so the FDA is permitted to audit our methods). We also have design and document reviews before we even get to coding stage.
The thing to remember is to not let your ego get in the way. When done well, the code is reviewed, not the developer, and the criticism is always constructive. Remember that everyone makes mistakes and a different perspective often helps. Our reviews often catch errors -- especially those that would be hard to test for -- that would be much harder to clear up at a later stage. Luckily I work with people who are always professional and no one is out to get anyone else. Shops with heavy office politics may not do so well.
I highly recommend the process.
This situation is quite common for companies developing higher end embedded systems. What my last employer tended to do was hire EEs with good programming backgrounds and encourage them to go on to get Masters in CS. I'm more interested in Software Engineering (undergrad was EE) so that is what my MS will be. Perhaps you might try having a *good* recruiting firm or a consultant do the CS side of the interview and you could handle the "can we work with this person" part of the interview process?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I wonder about this everytime I see a similar statement, so now I'm going to ask. What's the big deal with "getting our eggs out of this basket?" Species emerge and become extinct all the time. Why do people think humans will be any different? I guess the thing that really puzzles me is why anyone worries about the fate of the nebulous "human race." You and your loved ones will be long dead. If the sun goes nova, the ones on outer colonies will surive, but those here on Earth are dead, anyway, so it can't just be compassion for fellow beings.
So someone tell me why it's so important that humanity not die out?
Is it really so hard to just tell your customer "we can do that, but it will cost you?" I have found that it's easy to say this, but most people don't cause they're (a) afraid of the customer's reaction, or (b) too proud, so they think "I can do all that and still meet the deadline." Then they usually start falling behind on the project! My experience has been that when I tell someone what the new feature will cost in terms of time or reliability and leave the decision up to them, the response is usually an intelligent one. Customers by and large are not stupid, but they do need to be educated (by us, the developers) about the ramifications of the decisions they make.
Before this, I was a hardware engineer. Trust me, people change requirements for physical as well as logical designs. The proper way to handle changing requirements is pretty much the same, regardless of project types.
But this *is* the problem. It will cost more to fix the problem after product release than before. There are years of software lifecycle data to show that. That's why we conduct code reviews at work. Ideally, your good programmers should not be fixing the work of bad programmers. But if at least some of their time can be used to point out the flaws, the bad programmers can become better; those that won't should just be axed.
Man, if I had any moderator points left, I'd mod you way the hell up! As a graduate software engineering student, I would be interested in seeing what came of the commercial/OSS coupling/cohesion comparisons. Even if you're wrong it's still shows good insight.
I'm one of those weird people who rarely purchase anything other than food and other necessities. I don't want consumer advertising targeted at me. When I need to know about something, I will research it and get a much more balanced view than any advertiser dares give me. In the rare case when there is a completely new product that I might want to know about, I 'll probably come across a product review in a magazine, or website that I frequent. If I don't it's not a big deal.
The only form of targetted marketing I can think of that I have ever found beneficial is from vendors that specialize in narrow areas and that I have previously done business with. Even Amazon, who knows my purchase history, has rarely shown me anything I'm interested in in their Suggestions. Too much generalization in their categories.
Are you kidding? 90% of the reason I got dish network was for Sundance and IFC (Independent Film Channel)
Sure you can add things to simulate some aspects of reality (and I have tried this), but by definition, you can never *completely* simulate reality. The real issue is how can you possibly know everything that might affect the robots' predator/prey relationship? In hindsight, many details that may have been considered insignificant, turn out to be important and vice versa. If you are studying the robots operations under a very limited set of conditions, you can get away with it, but to get useful information about interactions in the real world, a researcher would be fooling him/her self if he thought a simulated space would suffice.
Rod Brooks makes a pretty good point of this in his Creature Architectures paper and goes so far as to suggest that robots in simulated worlds are essentially useless.
It would be more cost efficient, but a lot of useful data might be lost. Robots that must interact with the real world have to deal with the messiness and uncertainty that it entails. e.g, a predator robot can lose track of its prey due to a faulty sensor, or an interfering signal, or its wheels might slip on the floor, thus allowing hte prey to escape. None of these would be present in the simulated world of the program you are suggesting. There's more to research with physical robots than "eye candy."
I've wondered the same thing when people here make that statement. Hey, if a rock slams into Earth and I and my loved ones are dead, why do I give a rat's ass that a few million humans are living on Mars? I'm still *dead*, nothing changes that.
I see it as equivalent to saying, "Well, I fell in front of a bus yesterday and am now a big wet spot, but it's OK: there are still billions of other humans alive to keep the species going,"
There is one simple reason that everyone seems to be missing. And it's the reason I don't have and probably never will have, a Tivo: I really don't want to watch more TV. Everyone keeps gushing about how great it is, how they finally can watch more of the shows they like, etc. Well, guess what: like so many people, I only watch TV as pretty much a last resort. Sure, there are a few shows I like, but nothing I mind if I miss. I'd rather be hanging out with a friend, riding my bike (when it's not winter in MN!) messing around online, working on an art project, or some electronic project, or just reading a book. TV is what I do when I just want to veg out, or I'm too lazy to move. If there is nothing worth watching on, half the time it just inspires me to get up off the couch and find something more interesting to do. I can appreciate that Tivo is a well designed product, but face it, everyone does not want to watch more TV!!!
What you are suggesting is not at all unusual. Outside the tech fields, most people do not end up working in a field directly related to their degree. Even within the tech field, I know Mechanical Engineers who do Software or Digital Design, Physicists and 2 Chemists writing software, etc.
In my own case, my undergraduate degree is EE. I designed Analog & Digital (H/W) interfaces for PCs and some embedded systems for about 10 years before deciding to focus on embedded software development only. I've almost completed a Masters in Software Engineering and these days the only hardware I develop is personal projects in my basement.
Go with what you enjoy, the rest will follow.
My suggestion: just pay the alarm company. You get the benefits many have listed and *some* piece of mind. I have woken up at 2 am to blaring sirens and my house filled with smoke (was still a smoldering log in fireplace and flue was closed). The fire dept had already been dispatched before the alarm service even called to verify the alarm from the smoke/heat detector(they were called back before they arrived here).
What you might want to do, though, is see if you can tap into their sensors and monitor those from the web. Talk to your installer: once I told the guy checking my system (the previous owner had it installed) that I was an EE, he went into all the details of the system and answered all my technical questions.
You can't guarantee safety with *any* measure you take, but you can take a number of steps to *increase* it. Good external locks, smoke & CO detectors, and get to know your neighbors.
I agree with the other poster who said that university is not a trade school. But at the same time, there should be some assistance with making the transition from the academic to the working world.
I don't think it's that software is that much more intrinsically difficult than bridge design, but rather that we know how to manage the complexity of bridge design and are still learning to manage the complexity of software.
We build medical instruments and I think I can claim that our embedded software products are useful and reliable. They *have* to be. And having produced over 250kloc on this project so far, I have to say that complex software design really isn't as difficult as people seem to think. On our team, we all have electrical engineering backgrounds, so perhaps that process of "design first, code later" is ingrained from years of making mistakes
... but if you can't do that: well, the graphic artists at my last job had mobiles, bean bag chairs and tropical fish in their cubes. Made for a more fun work environment.
We produce software for embedded devices, and code reviews are definitely useful and an expected part of our development process (we make medical instruments, so the FDA is permitted to audit our methods). We also have design and document reviews before we even get to coding stage. The thing to remember is to not let your ego get in the way. When done well, the code is reviewed, not the developer, and the criticism is always constructive. Remember that everyone makes mistakes and a different perspective often helps. Our reviews often catch errors -- especially those that would be hard to test for -- that would be much harder to clear up at a later stage. Luckily I work with people who are always professional and no one is out to get anyone else. Shops with heavy office politics may not do so well. I highly recommend the process.
This situation is quite common for companies developing higher end embedded systems. What my last employer tended to do was hire EEs with good programming backgrounds and encourage them to go on to get Masters in CS. I'm more interested in Software Engineering (undergrad was EE) so that is what my MS will be. Perhaps you might try having a *good* recruiting firm or a consultant do the CS side of the interview and you could handle the "can we work with this person" part of the interview process?