When you call it "my corporate network", you have defined yourself as the exact IT staff users complain about. It's not your network, unlesss you own the corporation itself. It is the company's network.
No, when I call it "my corporate network", it's because I'm on responsible for it, regardless of the sophomoric word and semantic games you want to play.
And your toils in the back office contribut zero to the bottom line. Sure you keep things up and running, but you're not making the products, or out there selling them.
Yeah, let me shut down 'my' network for a day and see how much gets made or sold. A big fat '0' in the income column will show how much I contribute. Adults realize that support staff are just as important as the front off staff. Those who believe as you do, that support staff contribute nothing and that their entire job consists of rolling over and catering to every whim of every one in the company are nothing more than self centered children who need to grow the f*uck up.
You mean there are still people naive enough to think that "secrecy" will protect their idea?
Well, yeah, there are still people who believe that - because time and time again it's been proven to be true. If my competition doesn't know what I'm planning or doing - they can't prepare a response.
Guess what -- ideas aren't new in 99.999% of cases.
So what? Just because the idea isn't new is no reason not to protect the fact that I'm actually working on turning the idea into reality. That fact is my bread-and-butter, my secret sauce, my livelihood, and not protecting is stupid beyond belief. What's "absolutely asinine, laughable, ludicrous, and criminally negligent of paying attention to reality" is your rant based on the mistaken belief that "business IP" and "ideas" equate to code. There's a lot more to business than code.
Have a look at 'The Case For Mars' and 'Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization' by Robert Zubrin.
And then, once you've done so, drop 'em in your recycling bin (to prevent them from being read by others) and promptly forget their contents. Seriously, they're deeply flawed because Zubrin has a very shaky grasp on what constitutes "present-day tech". Much of what he confidently proposes as key technologies for the mission are vapor/paperware that haven't even been tested as bench prototypes, let alone properly engineered and tested.
I suspect that when your core business depends on building massive caches of copyrighted materials (for what one would hope is a non-infringing purpose; but search engine databases aren't exactly a fully litigated area...)
That 'massive cache' is a side business. Google's core business is advertising, and everything else they run is sublimated to the twin goals of gathering as much personal information on you as possible, and serving you directed ads based on that information.
Seriously, it's 2011 (almost 2012) and Google hasn't been a 'search engine' company in a long time.
Which goes back to my comment about needing a considerable range of unique materials for the printer and the need for the ability to print complex objects made of multiple materials.
Things you would prefer not to stock every possible part, but where waiting for three months for a resupply (assuming it's considered important enough to get on the very next flight) will annoy the crap out of everyone.
If it's not worth taking up weight/volume on the next flight - why is it worth it to take up weight/volume/power/cooling on the station?
And it's about researching new technology, and new ways of working. But god forbid NASA should sponsor research.
I have no problem with NASA sponsoring research. I have a problem with people coming up with bullshit and nonsensical reasons NASA should sponsor research for equipment that NASA doesn't need for the foreseeable future.
It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away.
You still have to find the part assuming it's on board.
That's why the ISS, like any such installation, has a inventory control system. Finding the part is going to take a fraction of the time it will take to print the part.
And some repairs (especially, anything done outside the station) are going to take a long time to do anyway.
Same deal, even if they're done outside the station, the time to repair is far, far less than it will take to print all but the smallest and most trivial part.
(Why yes, yes I have done this kind of work and these kinds of repairs similarly isolated.)
With iOS my app has to go through the entire approval process again, adding at least a 1 week minimum delay before the bug fixes reach the users. It's far better allowing the Android users to give the game a thorough thrashing for several days to make sure there aren't any obscure or hard to trigger bugs, then roll out to the iOS folks.
Speaking as an end user, all I can say - Hell the fuck no it isn't 'better' for me to be your unpaid beta tester. From an end user's POV, it's much better to have that one week delay, because it forces developers to produce a more polished product in the first place, because they can't just "push it out" and move on.
You can't occupy 'high end' and 'numerically dominant' niches at the same time...
That's TFA's whole point - Apple occupies the more important niche, "most lucrative/remunerative". Given the numbers in TFA, Android would have to outnumber Apple by almost fifty-to-one to equate to the same income to developers. But, because of Android's fragmentation, it's actually even worse for the developers. Think hundreds-to-one or thousands-to-one to get just one Android phone with the market penetration of the iPhone, and even then the user demographics will still skew radically differently.
I don't mean this as trolling against Apple
But that's pretty much all you have, because you missed the whole point of the article entirely.
It is not a real aircraft carrier, it's an oversized aircraft-carrying cruiser.
This exactly. And it can't carry a significant airwing, and what aircraft it can carry are compromised in payload and range. It's a considerable regional threat, but against a full sized carrier... it's no match. It's not even close.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because it is always easier to come up with a technological solution (even if it doesn't work) than it is to address the real (usually human) problem.
No, it's because of something the summary leaves out - there's a very high probability that the accident that started the chain reaction (which the buses were at the end of) was caused by... somebody paying more attention to texting than to driving.
It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away. With 3D printing, your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) goes way, way up.
Assuming, of course, that you have the spare part in site, this is true.
Which is less difficult than you think, because you can figure out (with a fair degree of accuracy) what parts are most likely to fail well in advance - and spare those parts. It's also why almost all systems on ISS are redundant and have considerable spare capacity on top of that, and why great effort was taken to build the systems from common/standard (to the ISS) parts. It is, to some extent, rocket science, but it's a well known and fairly well understood problem.
Note that for operations farther from Earth, being able to make spares from generic materials is a major advance - instead of thousands (tens of thousands) of spares that need to be kept on hand, you need only a small number of unique materials in bulk, and your little replicator to turn the basic stock into whichever of the ten thousand parts is faulty today.
With very basic engineering, you can reduce that stock of parts considerably. Simple stuff, like using the same fans throughout the system, or the same voltage regulators, or the same valves. The ISS isn't your car where virtually every part is unique or part of small set. As I said above, great effort was put into reducing the unique parts count.
Or, for another real life example: The computer system I worked on while serving on a SSBN in the Navy had something like 20,000 modules - but because they were standard and reused throughout the system, it required less than 100 modules in spares to support the system. If we consumed all those modules, we could either down redundant or alternate equipment - or draw on spares from other systems built of the same modules.
And that's why idea of using a 3D printer is a non-starter right out of the gate. You don't need a small number of unique materials, you need dozens of them. You can't just rely on the ability to produce small relatively simple mechanical parts (which is what 3D printing is limited to for the foreseeable future), you also need to be able to produce cables, and motors, and IC's and transformers, and... the list goes on for pages and pages.
Most thieves are opportunists, and unless they've been watching you and really, really, REALLY want what you've got, then simply locking the car securely is your best bet.
This. Plus in my minivan, my camera bag lives between the front seats - it can't be seen from outside without climbing up on the hood or the roof.
The OP reminds me of some parents I know - making Herculean efforts to ensure their kid is never among strangers, never out of their sight or that of trusted persons, locking them away from the internet and strangers on their phones.... when something like 98% of child sexual abuse, abductions, and murders are done by family, close friends, and people in positions of authority over the child. (I.E., exactly the people they're doing nothing to protect the child against.) But the media plays up the strangers, and would lead the easily panicked to believe these things done by strangers are common - when in fact they are exceedingly rare.
Sometimes is not enough that a part have certain (maybe complex or delicate) shape, but also the materials that make it.
This. And it's something proponents of 3D printing regularly miss - there's more to a physical part than just it's shape. Things like conductivity, strength, creep resistance, reactivity, etc... etc.. matter. They matter a great deal, and it's why the ISS isn't all made of a single material to start with.
And, of course, you need to lift whatever uses the printer to make the parts.
The counter to this argument is that you have to lift the parts too... but that leads to *another* thing that many people that have commented so far are missing - time. It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away. With 3D printing, your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) goes way, way up.
The radioactivity level was so high that my friend got a 3-month paid leave to get it out of his system.
That sounds, really, really, impressive and scary to the uninformed. But it's not actually. If your friend exceeded his quarterly allowed dose, it means he took the equivalent of a few transcontinental flights or chest X-rays. (I.E. practically nothing.)
I'm no sissy, I could sleep in a haunted houses or dig out bones from indian sacred land, but there is just no way I'll ever set foot in a Russian nuclear plant or a Chinese chemical plant.
No, you're not a sissy. Just badly misinformed and prone to EWW RAD1AT10N !1!11! syndrome.
My company decided to go with a vendor for their accounting platform, Great Plains. And now whenever we want to do any shit in that application, the vendor would take eons to come back with a workable solution and bill a fortune -- a great pain!
And you think it's any easier or cheaper with an in-house team? One that you have to care for and feed whether or not they're currently performing useful work?
Fortunately, the IT director, who is a highly technical guy, saw the problem and sent a few folks for Great Plains training.
You have pretty low standards for what constitutes a 'great guy', because getting vendor training on your software should be SOP, not a solution to a self caused problem by not doing so.
The reason the military has been able to fly UAV's is because they don't have any rules. Do whatever you want. But in the civil area, we have rules because we choose to protect ourselves from our government and others.
In some universe where the military had no rule, that would be a reasonable statement. But here in the real world, they do have rules - a whole raftload of them.
Those subs are "advanced" only to those who are pretty much completely and utterly unfamiliar with submarine technology. They're really pretty crude and barely up to WWI levels of sophistication.
Steamies more or less work like a simple air engine, here's an intense pressure on one side of a piston and open to the air or to a vacuum on the other, now reverse the valves in time with the crank and off you go.
Except of course for all those steam engines which use turbines and/or a closed cycle steam loop - like your local coal powered electric plant, or the average nuclear powered submarine.
Note that you can play word games.
Says the guy who mistakes the subset 'locomotives' for the class 'steam power'.
Google and Facebook certainly get extra developer buy-on for open sourcing some things.
That's developer buy in, not street cred.
Also: github! I think they probably get an advantage from open sourcing some of their stuff (although it's not all open)... After all, they're the premier open source hosting site.
That's an opinion, not a measurable fact - and probably has as much to do with the increasing distrust of Sourceforge as anything else.
There's a littler difference between releasing your own source code, and adding a few bits to someone else's code. So, get back to me when you have a relevant and clueful example.
So, basically, Facebooks business plan is to take the investors money and go blow it away on toys? Yeah, that will be really great for the future value of their stock.
That's basically what Google has done - and it hasn't hurt their stock noticeably.
Slashdot Mirror
No, when I call it "my corporate network", it's because I'm on responsible for it, regardless of the sophomoric word and semantic games you want to play.
Yeah, let me shut down 'my' network for a day and see how much gets made or sold. A big fat '0' in the income column will show how much I contribute. Adults realize that support staff are just as important as the front off staff. Those who believe as you do, that support staff contribute nothing and that their entire job consists of rolling over and catering to every whim of every one in the company are nothing more than self centered children who need to grow the f*uck up.
Well, yeah, there are still people who believe that - because time and time again it's been proven to be true. If my competition doesn't know what I'm planning or doing - they can't prepare a response.
So what? Just because the idea isn't new is no reason not to protect the fact that I'm actually working on turning the idea into reality. That fact is my bread-and-butter, my secret sauce, my livelihood, and not protecting is stupid beyond belief. What's "absolutely asinine, laughable, ludicrous, and criminally negligent of paying attention to reality" is your rant based on the mistaken belief that "business IP" and "ideas" equate to code. There's a lot more to business than code.
And then, once you've done so, drop 'em in your recycling bin (to prevent them from being read by others) and promptly forget their contents. Seriously, they're deeply flawed because Zubrin has a very shaky grasp on what constitutes "present-day tech". Much of what he confidently proposes as key technologies for the mission are vapor/paperware that haven't even been tested as bench prototypes, let alone properly engineered and tested.
Don't forget to xerox the post-it note, and have a kleenex handy.
That 'massive cache' is a side business. Google's core business is advertising, and everything else they run is sublimated to the twin goals of gathering as much personal information on you as possible, and serving you directed ads based on that information.
Seriously, it's 2011 (almost 2012) and Google hasn't been a 'search engine' company in a long time.
Which goes back to my comment about needing a considerable range of unique materials for the printer and the need for the ability to print complex objects made of multiple materials.
If it's not worth taking up weight/volume on the next flight - why is it worth it to take up weight/volume/power/cooling on the station?
I have no problem with NASA sponsoring research. I have a problem with people coming up with bullshit and nonsensical reasons NASA should sponsor research for equipment that NASA doesn't need for the foreseeable future.
That's why the ISS, like any such installation, has a inventory control system. Finding the part is going to take a fraction of the time it will take to print the part.
Same deal, even if they're done outside the station, the time to repair is far, far less than it will take to print all but the smallest and most trivial part.
(Why yes, yes I have done this kind of work and these kinds of repairs similarly isolated.)
Speaking as an end user, all I can say - Hell the fuck no it isn't 'better' for me to be your unpaid beta tester. From an end user's POV, it's much better to have that one week delay, because it forces developers to produce a more polished product in the first place, because they can't just "push it out" and move on.
That's TFA's whole point - Apple occupies the more important niche, "most lucrative/remunerative". Given the numbers in TFA, Android would have to outnumber Apple by almost fifty-to-one to equate to the same income to developers. But, because of Android's fragmentation, it's actually even worse for the developers. Think hundreds-to-one or thousands-to-one to get just one Android phone with the market penetration of the iPhone, and even then the user demographics will still skew radically differently.
But that's pretty much all you have, because you missed the whole point of the article entirely.
This exactly. And it can't carry a significant airwing, and what aircraft it can carry are compromised in payload and range. It's a considerable regional threat, but against a full sized carrier... it's no match. It's not even close.
No, it's because of something the summary leaves out - there's a very high probability that the accident that started the chain reaction (which the buses were at the end of) was caused by... somebody paying more attention to texting than to driving.
Which is less difficult than you think, because you can figure out (with a fair degree of accuracy) what parts are most likely to fail well in advance - and spare those parts. It's also why almost all systems on ISS are redundant and have considerable spare capacity on top of that, and why great effort was taken to build the systems from common/standard (to the ISS) parts. It is, to some extent, rocket science, but it's a well known and fairly well understood problem.
With very basic engineering, you can reduce that stock of parts considerably. Simple stuff, like using the same fans throughout the system, or the same voltage regulators, or the same valves. The ISS isn't your car where virtually every part is unique or part of small set. As I said above, great effort was put into reducing the unique parts count.
Or, for another real life example: The computer system I worked on while serving on a SSBN in the Navy had something like 20,000 modules - but because they were standard and reused throughout the system, it required less than 100 modules in spares to support the system. If we consumed all those modules, we could either down redundant or alternate equipment - or draw on spares from other systems built of the same modules.
And that's why idea of using a 3D printer is a non-starter right out of the gate. You don't need a small number of unique materials, you need dozens of them. You can't just rely on the ability to produce small relatively simple mechanical parts (which is what 3D printing is limited to for the foreseeable future), you also need to be able to produce cables, and motors, and IC's and transformers, and... the list goes on for pages and pages.
This. Plus in my minivan, my camera bag lives between the front seats - it can't be seen from outside without climbing up on the hood or the roof.
The OP reminds me of some parents I know - making Herculean efforts to ensure their kid is never among strangers, never out of their sight or that of trusted persons, locking them away from the internet and strangers on their phones.... when something like 98% of child sexual abuse, abductions, and murders are done by family, close friends, and people in positions of authority over the child. (I.E., exactly the people they're doing nothing to protect the child against.) But the media plays up the strangers, and would lead the easily panicked to believe these things done by strangers are common - when in fact they are exceedingly rare.
This. And it's something proponents of 3D printing regularly miss - there's more to a physical part than just it's shape. Things like conductivity, strength, creep resistance, reactivity, etc... etc.. matter. They matter a great deal, and it's why the ISS isn't all made of a single material to start with.
The counter to this argument is that you have to lift the parts too... but that leads to *another* thing that many people that have commented so far are missing - time. It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away. With 3D printing, your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) goes way, way up.
You forgot "and it's pretty much vaporware", never having been tested or proven in hardware.
That sounds, really, really, impressive and scary to the uninformed. But it's not actually. If your friend exceeded his quarterly allowed dose, it means he took the equivalent of a few transcontinental flights or chest X-rays. (I.E. practically nothing.)
No, you're not a sissy. Just badly misinformed and prone to EWW RAD1AT10N !1!11! syndrome.
And you think it's any easier or cheaper with an in-house team? One that you have to care for and feed whether or not they're currently performing useful work?
You have pretty low standards for what constitutes a 'great guy', because getting vendor training on your software should be SOP, not a solution to a self caused problem by not doing so.
In some universe where the military had no rule, that would be a reasonable statement. But here in the real world, they do have rules - a whole raftload of them.
Those subs are "advanced" only to those who are pretty much completely and utterly unfamiliar with submarine technology. They're really pretty crude and barely up to WWI levels of sophistication.
Except of course for all those steam engines which use turbines and/or a closed cycle steam loop - like your local coal powered electric plant, or the average nuclear powered submarine.
Says the guy who mistakes the subset 'locomotives' for the class 'steam power'.
That's developer buy in, not street cred.
That's an opinion, not a measurable fact - and probably has as much to do with the increasing distrust of Sourceforge as anything else.
So, despite having exactly zero evidence (one way *or* the other) as to it's effect - you pronounce it a success.
There's a littler difference between releasing your own source code, and adding a few bits to someone else's code. So, get back to me when you have a relevant and clueful example.
That's basically what Google has done - and it hasn't hurt their stock noticeably.
And just why am I supposed to take the advice of guy who runs a minor website and provides an obscure software tool?