Bah. All you need is General Atomics as a sponsor, and the ITER to donate a laser or twenty. Large pulses should be just as effective as continous fire.;-)
People try to keep staging to a minimum to reduce costs.
I'm not certain that will hold true here. You're talking about rocket-powered planes that drag through the lower atmosphere at subsonic speeds. Such designs should allow for simpler couplings, and better recoverability. As I said in another post, it might even become preferred because of fast refueling. Just latch on a new booster stack and you'll be ready to go. Compared to refilling LHOx or kerosine tanks, it would be positively speedy.
Everyone wants [meta-stable fules]; nobody has them;)
Eh? I thought that some of the meta-stable fuels had been worked out, but simply didn't offer enough of an Isp or thrust advantage to justify their use. In these "sky NASCARs", as it were, the maintenece of the rocket would be less troublesome. Again, you're not lifting hundreds of metric tonnes to LEO, you're just going for a high powered joy ride with pit stops along the way.
Or maybe I'm confusing meta-stable fuels with tri-propellants.:-)
The laserbeam engine may be a bit more costly to produce, but air-breathers have definite advantages for relatively low cost. The only reason why they haven't been developed is that most rockets spend so little time in the atmosphere where they can scoop oxydizer. These vehicles don't have that problem.
Staging isn't a big issue, because you can make the rear pod recoverable and refuelable. It may actually be preferrable since you could refuel your rocket just by attaching new rocket stages. Remember, we're flying inside the atmosphere, not to LEO. The compromises are different.
As for meta-stable fuels, I'd wait to see how these races procede. If they catch on, you can be sure that SOMEONE will be cooking up batches of this rather volatile stuff.
These things are not "Minivans". (At least, not as they're defined in the US.) They're "mini-vehicles", period. And yes, they're on sale in the US. No, I seriously doubt they'll catch on.
Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets.
Laserbeam-powered, solid-fuel rocket. Just keep a ground laser trained on the exhaust cone of the craft, and you'll have a highly efficient craft with oodles of power.
There's also the question of how exotic are the engines allowed to get. Ramjets or other oxygen scoops might provide comperable power but better fuel economy. Not to mention the case of staging. Can the rocket be staged to drop mass in flight? What about the use of meta-stable fuels that require no oxydizer?
Except they don't have all the same things... at best they have one of those things, usually with some sort of sacrifice involved.
It doesn't matter. Viewed as a whole, the middle class is still a larger economic power house in all of these areas than the "rich" are. The fact that one man choses a plane, while another man choses a sports car, while another man choses a 2000sqft home near a city still adds up to more $$$ than the upper class puts into these areas.
Luxury goods are directed to those with lots of disposable income, which, IMO, does not typically include the middle class.
That doesn't seem to stop a large portion of the population from purchasing an SUV they don't need, a home entertainment center they don't need, a boat they don't need, and hundreds of other luxury items that they don't need. The middle class has some disposable income. They key is that they have to decide which things they really want with that disposable income.
It really is the same for the rich, except that they are looking on a more lavish level. Sure, they could afford all the same stuff middle class people do, but that's not necessarily what they want. Thus their $10,000 suits, $500,000 Exeleros, $10,000,000 private jets, and other nicities that can drain their bank just as fast as it can drain yours or mine. That's why many of these rich folks are attached these nicities as part of their position. i.e. They can't really afford a private jet, so their company pays for them to have one.
The point I'm making is that the upper class can afford these things without sacrificing, the middle class cannot.
But that's irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the economy is targetted at the middle class which have all the same things as the upper-class, just not as lavish.:-)
1. Is this really a Tablet PC? Looks more like an oversized PDA to me. 2. As an oversized PDA, this looks rather cool, so try to take my next question in context. 3. Does anyone actually have a use for all these Windows "Tablet PCs"? I mean, the idea seems nice, but I haven't seen any real-world uses for them that laptops don't already meet.
Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car -> Used sedan
Come now. Just because you have a sedan (I myself have one) doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of middle class people with Trans-ams, Camaros, and Pontiac Grand Prixes. The point is that the middle class can afford such a thing, not that everyone runs out and buys one.
$3000 Cell Phone -> $100-$500 Cell Phone
Was there a point to changing my figure from $0-$500 to $100-$500?
Jet Plane -> Cessna -> Model Airplane
You haven't talked to many pilots, have you? These guys aren't rich, they just like to fly. So they get a bank loan, purchase a used plane for $20,000-$50,000 or build a new one from a kit for $20,000-$30,000. Quite affordable for middle class people, just not practical for everyone.
Mansion -> Spacious Home -> 2-bedroom 800 sqft condo
Living in the city, a 2 bedroom 800sqft condo IS spacious. Living out in the coutry, it would be pretty sad if you couldn't do far better than that on much less money.
You can purchase a used Cessna for ~$20,000-$50,000, or you can build one for ~$20,000. You'd probably get a bank loan similar to your car loan, but you may be able to stretch the loan for a longer period than a car. (Planes usually last at least 20 years. With good care on the airframe, it can last two to three times that.)
Which isn't to say that you should run out and get a plane. Many people (myself included) don't have sports cars either, despite the fact that they can afford them. Only bother with a plane if you actually want to fly.
As for the vase... I take it you're not married?;-)
Given the name of the device, I have a feeling that the "oversized Star Trek Communicator" look is intentional. Now if only it actually flipped open.:-)
From a physics standpoint, you only need "the poor" (really, "the working class") for two reasons:
1. To produce mechanical power 2. To intelligently apply that mechanical power
The former reason is why so many ancient civilizations used slaves. Being able to generate about 200kWs (~500kWs burst) of power may not seem like much, but if you put enough people together you can power ships, lift boulders, hammer out the sides of mountains, and other laborous activities.
Obviously, animals of burden can provide much more power than humans, but they often fail the latter need. i.e. You can yoke an animal and ask it to move forward, but you'll have a hard time getting it to assemble something for you. That's why humans are still necessary. They know how to apply power.
Today, computers and robotics combined with various power generation techniques have allowed us to manage both requirements with great success. For example, much of the construction of a car is repetitive work. Create a proper computer program and a robot can do the work faster and cheaper.
That's why there's an ever shrinking lower-class population. The focus has gone from doing the work to providing tools and maintenence to do the work. This has placed the majority of the population in a better position than before. A side effect of this "nearly everyone is middle class" change is that more tools can be produced. More tool production means that more work can be done. More work translates directly into more goods and cheaper prices.
The rich have employees, there is no equivalent to that for the middle class.
Really? I seriously doubt you'll find many "rich" today who actually employ more than a few personal servants. (e.g. Maid, Nanny, Driver, Butler, etc.) Nearly all businesses today are corporations. Corporations are owned by share holders. While many share holders are "rich", many (most?) are middle to upper middle class.
This is in direct opposition to the "small business" owner who *does* directly employ people. Unfortunately, making Cappuccinos isn't likely to advance the development of nanotech.
So I hardly think that even the "super mega ultra rich" will have much in the way of monopolistic control over such technology.
Unfrortunately this will only be accessible to the super mega ultra rich.
I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were. Today's society instead revolves around the needs of the middle class. If the middle class will be unable to afford it in the near future, the "super mega ultra rich" aren't going to be able to afford it (or even have it available) now.
Sure, the "super mega ultra rich" can afford nicer stuff than you and I, but they certainly don't have much that you and I don't have. A quick comparison list:
They have -> We have Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car $3000 Cell Phone -> $0-$500 Cell Phone Jet Plane -> Cessna Mansion -> Spacious Home Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use
The world isn't what it was in the time of H.G. Wells. I seriously doubt you'll be seeing the "poor" eating the "rich" anytime soon.:-)
The movie was originally going to be released on DVD in the US, but they had to cancel all the US orders at the last minute due to unspecified legal issues.
BTW, I've seen the movie and I have to say, DAMN IS THAT EVER FUNNY!:-)
One word sums it up: FUUUUUKKKKKKOOOOOOVVVVV!!!:-P
Well then, you had better hurry up and mark me as a foe. After all, I must not be worth listening to since I obviously don't understand that an emotionally charged issue must not be more complex than one side is right and the other side is wrong.
Hurry, you don't want to miss the reactionary train! *rolls eyes*
You know, people who disagree with you can be capable of intelligent/critical thought. You might want to spend some time considering that.
I would like to see Jobs, who sells one of the most popular audio devices on the market today, stand up to the record industry, but he's not a man of infinite powers, and you can be sure that the executives, and ultimately shareholders, may not be as bold and willing to put it on the line and call the record industry's bluff.
Keep in mind, though, that this is the same guy who keeps his own shareholders out of the development loop. It's not like he's ever been afraid to gruffly tell the shareholders, "You'll understand when we get there."
You may be right, and Apple may back down first. But if anyone is going to stand up to them, it going to be Jobs. If he fails, these crooks will never be stopped.
I knew that was going to bite me in the ass as soon as I hit the submit button. What I meant to say is, "Hopefully you outgrow hacking as a pursuit." Hacking is great if you need a quick fix and WILL replace it or have no need to replace it, but it's really not something to strive for when you're mature in your field. On the other hand, you might like to tinker, which is similar, but not the same.:-)
My prediction is that Jobs (in true Jobs fashion) won't back down. The Music Execs will then be left with a choice: Either back off, or pull the plug and take it to the next level.
I'd LOVE to see them take it to the next level. iTunes would add a nice little message on the front that says, "The Music Industry has chosen to prevent sales of Music because they wanted to gouge you, the customer. We at Apple have resisted their arm twisting, and they have responded by shutting down the music store. However, there is something you can do about it. Call XXX-XXX-XXXX and let them know that you will boycott all music purchases until they bring back the 99 cent iTune!"
Can you imagine the public outrage against the music companies? They aren't exactly liked right now. Throw a little fuel on the fire, and WHOOSH. Bye, bye idiot execs. Your shareholders are calling.
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question!
on
Hacking - Art or Science?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What is long-term? Days, months, years, decades? Does it not depend on the problem?
Of course it does. As you say, Engineering can have many of the same "Art vs. Science" questions that "hacking" does.
That is completely backwards. In college you learn the formulas, the equations, etc. In life, you hack, with what you know.
To be clear, I think that hacking is "unfocused engineering". So you "hack" while you're still learning, but you hopefully outgrow it for the rest of your life.
Consider the following parts. Are they hacks or engineering?
1. A paperclip pressed into service to keep a flooded engine running. 2. A bypass that drains excess fluids away from the engine. 3. A potato cut in half, used to remove a broken light bulb. 4. A colored lightbulb that improves the natural light spectrums. 5. A shell script that uses wget to download an HTML page, which it passes to grep, cut, and sed to find specific information. 6. A soap service that obtains the same information.
In case you're wondering, I see them as hack, engineering, hack, engineering, hack, engineering. Some of these hacks are really clever, especially the potato to remove the light bulb. Some of them are commonly used in short term situations, such as number 5. But you wouldn't say use number 5 as a long term solution. What if the HTML page changes? What if the data contains a special character you hadn't planned for? Then your script breaks. Number 6 solves that problem elegently, using tools intended for the task.:-)
Don't you think you're being a bit tough on hackers? It's hard to argue against a properly Engineered solution to a problem but if everyone sat down and thought through all of the possible failing points of any idea that they ever had, everybody would be too depressed to make anything and invention would wane.
I'm certainly not trying to make hacks into sounding like anything horrible. My only point is that "hacking" per se is simply unfocused applied engineering. When one matures as an engineer, one tends to focus his talents and produce better "long term" solutions. Sometimes a "quick hack" is necessary, but that usually something intended to temporarily patch a problem while an engineering solution is being designed.
On my own list of favorite hacks, I have to say that the air scrubber adapter that the guys on the ground came up with for Apollo 13 is probably one of the coolest of all time. I wonder if it helped inspire the show MacGyver?:-)
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question!
on
Hacking - Art or Science?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, you've managed to redefine "hacking" to Alanis Morissette proportions.
For example, I've heard Einstein's Theory of Relativity described as a beautiful hack
Einstein didn't *change* anything. How can it be a hack? Rather, he produced a theory describing the Universe according to scientific method.
Most certainly, people like Edison and George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney were hackers.
Actually, they were experimenters. They experimented until they found what they were looking for.
BTW, no one here should be allowed to comment on this topic unless they've seen this movie. After all, would you be prepared if gravity were to suddenly reverse itself? Would you!?:-P
Hacking is for newbs! LOLOL!!! ROTFLMAOOMFGBBQ!111!one!!!111one>
(Now that I've got your attention, and had a good chuckle...)
Let me put this to rest, once and for all. "Hacking" is not something to strive for, no matter what your defintion. What "hacking" is, is an expression of a natural problem-solving ability that all humans have. This problem solving ability can give us MacGyver-level talents allowing us to fashion a solution to any situation. Such innate talent is a good thing.
However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose. Sure, that ugly hacked code you put in now does the trick in a pinch. But if it's not replaced with a long term solution in a hurry, it will cost the company large amounts of money in support and maintenece.
That's where true Engineering steps in. As an engineer (or architect as the case may be) you have a responsibility to weigh in all the competing factors to produce a solution that is both long term and inexpensive to maintain. Your solution may have to go through hell and back and still get the job done. You can never quite be certain of what situation your code will go through, especially if people's lives and/or fortunes depend on it.
So in short, leave the hacking in college. It was a lot of fun when you had raw, unfocused talent, but you should be more mature than that now. Use what you know to build a real solution and leave the "hacking" to the next generation of kids.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
CRAP. That's supposed to be 200 watts. /me sheepish
BTW, watts is power, joules is energy.
Good luck getting that sort of laser power ;)
;-)
;)
:-)
Bah. All you need is General Atomics as a sponsor, and the ITER to donate a laser or twenty. Large pulses should be just as effective as continous fire.
People try to keep staging to a minimum to reduce costs.
I'm not certain that will hold true here. You're talking about rocket-powered planes that drag through the lower atmosphere at subsonic speeds. Such designs should allow for simpler couplings, and better recoverability. As I said in another post, it might even become preferred because of fast refueling. Just latch on a new booster stack and you'll be ready to go. Compared to refilling LHOx or kerosine tanks, it would be positively speedy.
Everyone wants [meta-stable fules]; nobody has them
Eh? I thought that some of the meta-stable fuels had been worked out, but simply didn't offer enough of an Isp or thrust advantage to justify their use. In these "sky NASCARs", as it were, the maintenece of the rocket would be less troublesome. Again, you're not lifting hundreds of metric tonnes to LEO, you're just going for a high powered joy ride with pit stops along the way.
Or maybe I'm confusing meta-stable fuels with tri-propellants.
The laserbeam engine may be a bit more costly to produce, but air-breathers have definite advantages for relatively low cost. The only reason why they haven't been developed is that most rockets spend so little time in the atmosphere where they can scoop oxydizer. These vehicles don't have that problem.
Staging isn't a big issue, because you can make the rear pod recoverable and refuelable. It may actually be preferrable since you could refuel your rocket just by attaching new rocket stages. Remember, we're flying inside the atmosphere, not to LEO. The compromises are different.
As for meta-stable fuels, I'd wait to see how these races procede. If they catch on, you can be sure that SOMEONE will be cooking up batches of this rather volatile stuff.
These things are not "Minivans". (At least, not as they're defined in the US.) They're "mini-vehicles", period. And yes, they're on sale in the US. No, I seriously doubt they'll catch on.
Not sure where you got the Ford or GM connection.
Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets.
Laserbeam-powered, solid-fuel rocket. Just keep a ground laser trained on the exhaust cone of the craft, and you'll have a highly efficient craft with oodles of power.
There's also the question of how exotic are the engines allowed to get. Ramjets or other oxygen scoops might provide comperable power but better fuel economy. Not to mention the case of staging. Can the rocket be staged to drop mass in flight? What about the use of meta-stable fuels that require no oxydizer?
You get the idea.
Cant' imagine the amount of fuel they will need for these races...
One word: SPONSORS
I expect ticket prices will be upwards of $150 per seat easily.
I don't know what NASCAR tickets go for, but probably something similar. ($150 for a "good" seat certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.)
Except they don't have all the same things... at best they have one of those things, usually with some sort of sacrifice involved.
It doesn't matter. Viewed as a whole, the middle class is still a larger economic power house in all of these areas than the "rich" are. The fact that one man choses a plane, while another man choses a sports car, while another man choses a 2000sqft home near a city still adds up to more $$$ than the upper class puts into these areas.
Luxury goods are directed to those with lots of disposable income, which, IMO, does not typically include the middle class.
That doesn't seem to stop a large portion of the population from purchasing an SUV they don't need, a home entertainment center they don't need, a boat they don't need, and hundreds of other luxury items that they don't need. The middle class has some disposable income. They key is that they have to decide which things they really want with that disposable income.
It really is the same for the rich, except that they are looking on a more lavish level. Sure, they could afford all the same stuff middle class people do, but that's not necessarily what they want. Thus their $10,000 suits, $500,000 Exeleros, $10,000,000 private jets, and other nicities that can drain their bank just as fast as it can drain yours or mine. That's why many of these rich folks are attached these nicities as part of their position. i.e. They can't really afford a private jet, so their company pays for them to have one.
The point I'm making is that the upper class can afford these things without sacrificing, the middle class cannot.
:-)
But that's irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the economy is targetted at the middle class which have all the same things as the upper-class, just not as lavish.
1. Is this really a Tablet PC? Looks more like an oversized PDA to me.
2. As an oversized PDA, this looks rather cool, so try to take my next question in context.
3. Does anyone actually have a use for all these Windows "Tablet PCs"? I mean, the idea seems nice, but I haven't seen any real-world uses for them that laptops don't already meet.
Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car -> Used sedan
Come now. Just because you have a sedan (I myself have one) doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of middle class people with Trans-ams, Camaros, and Pontiac Grand Prixes. The point is that the middle class can afford such a thing, not that everyone runs out and buys one.
$3000 Cell Phone -> $100-$500 Cell Phone
Was there a point to changing my figure from $0-$500 to $100-$500?
Jet Plane -> Cessna -> Model Airplane
You haven't talked to many pilots, have you? These guys aren't rich, they just like to fly. So they get a bank loan, purchase a used plane for $20,000-$50,000 or build a new one from a kit for $20,000-$30,000. Quite affordable for middle class people, just not practical for everyone.
Mansion -> Spacious Home -> 2-bedroom 800 sqft condo
Living in the city, a 2 bedroom 800sqft condo IS spacious. Living out in the coutry, it would be pretty sad if you couldn't do far better than that on much less money.
Well, that's easy enough to fix.
;-)
Vase
You can purchase a used Cessna for ~$20,000-$50,000, or you can build one for ~$20,000. You'd probably get a bank loan similar to your car loan, but you may be able to stretch the loan for a longer period than a car. (Planes usually last at least 20 years. With good care on the airframe, it can last two to three times that.)
Which isn't to say that you should run out and get a plane. Many people (myself included) don't have sports cars either, despite the fact that they can afford them. Only bother with a plane if you actually want to fly.
As for the vase... I take it you're not married?
Given the name of the device, I have a feeling that the "oversized Star Trek Communicator" look is intentional. Now if only it actually flipped open. :-)
From a physics standpoint, you only need "the poor" (really, "the working class") for two reasons:
1. To produce mechanical power
2. To intelligently apply that mechanical power
The former reason is why so many ancient civilizations used slaves. Being able to generate about 200kWs (~500kWs burst) of power may not seem like much, but if you put enough people together you can power ships, lift boulders, hammer out the sides of mountains, and other laborous activities.
Obviously, animals of burden can provide much more power than humans, but they often fail the latter need. i.e. You can yoke an animal and ask it to move forward, but you'll have a hard time getting it to assemble something for you. That's why humans are still necessary. They know how to apply power.
Today, computers and robotics combined with various power generation techniques have allowed us to manage both requirements with great success. For example, much of the construction of a car is repetitive work. Create a proper computer program and a robot can do the work faster and cheaper.
That's why there's an ever shrinking lower-class population. The focus has gone from doing the work to providing tools and maintenence to do the work. This has placed the majority of the population in a better position than before. A side effect of this "nearly everyone is middle class" change is that more tools can be produced. More tool production means that more work can be done. More work translates directly into more goods and cheaper prices.
The rich have employees, there is no equivalent to that for the middle class.
Really? I seriously doubt you'll find many "rich" today who actually employ more than a few personal servants. (e.g. Maid, Nanny, Driver, Butler, etc.) Nearly all businesses today are corporations. Corporations are owned by share holders. While many share holders are "rich", many (most?) are middle to upper middle class.
This is in direct opposition to the "small business" owner who *does* directly employ people. Unfortunately, making Cappuccinos isn't likely to advance the development of nanotech.
So I hardly think that even the "super mega ultra rich" will have much in the way of monopolistic control over such technology.
Unfrortunately this will only be accessible to the super mega ultra rich.
:-)
I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were. Today's society instead revolves around the needs of the middle class. If the middle class will be unable to afford it in the near future, the "super mega ultra rich" aren't going to be able to afford it (or even have it available) now.
Sure, the "super mega ultra rich" can afford nicer stuff than you and I, but they certainly don't have much that you and I don't have. A quick comparison list:
They have -> We have
Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car
$3000 Cell Phone -> $0-$500 Cell Phone
Jet Plane -> Cessna
Mansion -> Spacious Home
Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use
The world isn't what it was in the time of H.G. Wells. I seriously doubt you'll be seeing the "poor" eating the "rich" anytime soon.
The movie was originally going to be released on DVD in the US, but they had to cancel all the US orders at the last minute due to unspecified legal issues.
:-)
:-P
BTW, I've seen the movie and I have to say, DAMN IS THAT EVER FUNNY!
One word sums it up: FUUUUUKKKKKKOOOOOOVVVVV!!!
Well then, you had better hurry up and mark me as a foe. After all, I must not be worth listening to since I obviously don't understand that an emotionally charged issue must not be more complex than one side is right and the other side is wrong.
Hurry, you don't want to miss the reactionary train! *rolls eyes*
You know, people who disagree with you can be capable of intelligent/critical thought. You might want to spend some time considering that.
I would like to see Jobs, who sells one of the most popular audio devices on the market today, stand up to the record industry, but he's not a man of infinite powers, and you can be sure that the executives, and ultimately shareholders, may not be as bold and willing to put it on the line and call the record industry's bluff.
Keep in mind, though, that this is the same guy who keeps his own shareholders out of the development loop. It's not like he's ever been afraid to gruffly tell the shareholders, "You'll understand when we get there."
You may be right, and Apple may back down first. But if anyone is going to stand up to them, it going to be Jobs. If he fails, these crooks will never be stopped.
I knew that was going to bite me in the ass as soon as I hit the submit button. What I meant to say is, "Hopefully you outgrow hacking as a pursuit." Hacking is great if you need a quick fix and WILL replace it or have no need to replace it, but it's really not something to strive for when you're mature in your field. On the other hand, you might like to tinker, which is similar, but not the same. :-)
My prediction is that Jobs (in true Jobs fashion) won't back down. The Music Execs will then be left with a choice: Either back off, or pull the plug and take it to the next level.
I'd LOVE to see them take it to the next level. iTunes would add a nice little message on the front that says, "The Music Industry has chosen to prevent sales of Music because they wanted to gouge you, the customer. We at Apple have resisted their arm twisting, and they have responded by shutting down the music store. However, there is something you can do about it. Call XXX-XXX-XXXX and let them know that you will boycott all music purchases until they bring back the 99 cent iTune!"
Can you imagine the public outrage against the music companies? They aren't exactly liked right now. Throw a little fuel on the fire, and WHOOSH. Bye, bye idiot execs. Your shareholders are calling.
What is long-term? Days, months, years, decades? Does it not depend on the problem?
:-)
Of course it does. As you say, Engineering can have many of the same "Art vs. Science" questions that "hacking" does.
That is completely backwards. In college you learn the formulas, the equations, etc. In life, you hack, with what you know.
To be clear, I think that hacking is "unfocused engineering". So you "hack" while you're still learning, but you hopefully outgrow it for the rest of your life.
Consider the following parts. Are they hacks or engineering?
1. A paperclip pressed into service to keep a flooded engine running.
2. A bypass that drains excess fluids away from the engine.
3. A potato cut in half, used to remove a broken light bulb.
4. A colored lightbulb that improves the natural light spectrums.
5. A shell script that uses wget to download an HTML page, which it passes to grep, cut, and sed to find specific information.
6. A soap service that obtains the same information.
In case you're wondering, I see them as hack, engineering, hack, engineering, hack, engineering. Some of these hacks are really clever, especially the potato to remove the light bulb. Some of them are commonly used in short term situations, such as number 5. But you wouldn't say use number 5 as a long term solution. What if the HTML page changes? What if the data contains a special character you hadn't planned for? Then your script breaks. Number 6 solves that problem elegently, using tools intended for the task.
Don't you think you're being a bit tough on hackers? It's hard to argue against a properly Engineered solution to a problem but if everyone sat down and thought through all of the possible failing points of any idea that they ever had, everybody would be too depressed to make anything and invention would wane.
:-)
I'm certainly not trying to make hacks into sounding like anything horrible. My only point is that "hacking" per se is simply unfocused applied engineering. When one matures as an engineer, one tends to focus his talents and produce better "long term" solutions. Sometimes a "quick hack" is necessary, but that usually something intended to temporarily patch a problem while an engineering solution is being designed.
On my own list of favorite hacks, I have to say that the air scrubber adapter that the guys on the ground came up with for Apollo 13 is probably one of the coolest of all time. I wonder if it helped inspire the show MacGyver?
Actually, you've managed to redefine "hacking" to Alanis Morissette proportions.
For example, I've heard Einstein's Theory of Relativity described as a beautiful hack
Einstein didn't *change* anything. How can it be a hack? Rather, he produced a theory describing the Universe according to scientific method.
Most certainly, people like Edison and George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney were hackers.
Actually, they were experimenters. They experimented until they found what they were looking for.
BTW, no one here should be allowed to comment on this topic unless they've seen this movie. After all, would you be prepared if gravity were to suddenly reverse itself? Would you!? :-P
Hacking is for newbs! LOLOL!!! ROTFLMAOOMFGBBQ!111!one!!!111one>
:-)
(Now that I've got your attention, and had a good chuckle...)
Let me put this to rest, once and for all. "Hacking" is not something to strive for, no matter what your defintion. What "hacking" is, is an expression of a natural problem-solving ability that all humans have. This problem solving ability can give us MacGyver-level talents allowing us to fashion a solution to any situation. Such innate talent is a good thing.
However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose. Sure, that ugly hacked code you put in now does the trick in a pinch. But if it's not replaced with a long term solution in a hurry, it will cost the company large amounts of money in support and maintenece.
That's where true Engineering steps in. As an engineer (or architect as the case may be) you have a responsibility to weigh in all the competing factors to produce a solution that is both long term and inexpensive to maintain. Your solution may have to go through hell and back and still get the job done. You can never quite be certain of what situation your code will go through, especially if people's lives and/or fortunes depend on it.
So in short, leave the hacking in college. It was a lot of fun when you had raw, unfocused talent, but you should be more mature than that now. Use what you know to build a real solution and leave the "hacking" to the next generation of kids.