It's a common misconception that encryption is supposed to be 'unbreakable' (for some large value of 'unbreakable'), in all instances. In the real world of security (I.E. DoD etc...) it's quite common to have the complexity and difficulty of the cipher or code to match the 'speed value' (to coin a term) of the information. For example, diplomatic messages need to be kept hidden essentially forever - thus strong encryption. Tactical communications between Army formations or Navy ships can have a much lesser grade of encryption applied because their value is almost always rendered moot before they can be broken.
Do you know first-hand that this is true and is the policy?
Both firsthand (USN experience) and second hand (about two decades of studying the history and practice of cryptography). It's a fairly well know fact among those who have studied the subject.
The 'need' for ultra-strong, resist-attack forever grade encryption for personal use is an artifact of the (not uncommon) geek need to be [bigger|faster|stronger] than anyone else when it comes to computer stuff.
No. Well, yes it is, but it's not only a 'geek artifact'. On the Internet, if we need any cryptography at all, we need the strongest cryptography we can find, because we never know how capable our adversaries are.
That's true... If you have an actual adversary. I seriously doubt any significant number of casual encryption users[1] having anything worth protecting.
Basically, we need strong cryptography because designing systems against future, unknown attacks using knowledge of current, known attacks. This is harder than it looks.
That's true *if and only if* the information is worth protecting forever. If it doesn't need protecting forever - it doesn't need strong encryption as it doesn't need to be protected from theoretical future attacks.
[1] Folks who encrypt their email from paranoia or politics, as opposed to having something to actually hide. I.E. virtually everyone.
If a project doesn't require strong encryption, does it require encryption at all?
Yes.
It's a common misconception that encryption is supposed to be 'unbreakable' (for some large value of 'unbreakable'), in all instances. In the real world of security (I.E. DoD etc...) it's quite common to have the complexity and difficulty of the cipher or code to match the 'speed value' (to coin a term) of the information. For example, diplomatic messages need to be kept hidden essentially forever - thus strong encryption. Tactical communications between Army formations or Navy ships can have a much lesser grade of encryption applied because their value is almost always rendered moot before they can be broken.
The 'need' for ultra-strong, resist-attack forever grade encryption for personal use is an artifact of the (not uncommon) geek need to be [bigger|faster|stronger] than anyone else when it comes to computer stuff.
Looking back what would have been cheaper? To launch a new better one that don't need costly repairs? Or to keep repairing one that was out of date before it actually worked? Hmm, Where's the math whizz when you need him?
The problem is - it's not a straigtforward black and white accounting problem. There's a fair bit of psychology and politics in there as well.
It's easier to get money for a project already in progress, especially one showing results and with a high level of public popularity. It's much more difficult to do so for a 'start-up' project. In addition, the 'new' telescope would have had to weather years of budget cycles, in danger of cancellation each time - when it's constituency is small and there's nothing to show but a PowerPoint or two of what it *might* do. (That's assuming development went smoothly - a decidely dangerous assumption.)
As I understand it, Google is employing the free-beta now, paid-service later strategy for their new products. They're entering into markets with established competitors and what better way to gain market share than to offer their products free of charge?
That's precisely the point TFA makes - they aren't gaining significant market share.
Everyone I know or meet in a business context these days has two addresses: work and gmail. Sometimes they have another (like my home servers), but everyone has those two. I haven't heard anyone use a Yahoo, MSN or Hotmail address in months. Not a leader?! Please.
Ah... The famous conceit - "I like chocolate ice cream - therefore everyone likes chocolate ice cream". (Except the biggest selling flavor is actually..... Vanilla.)
Now, while the plural of anecdote isn't data - I'll offer this: Of the hundred odd people I email regularly not one has a gmail adress. Not one.
While Open Source software is reintroducing integrity and giving power back to the client,
Sure - if the software fits the clients needs (as is). Or the client has the money, or charm, to get the developer or a programmer to get the software to work or to add needed features. Otherwise, the client is at the mercy of the developers.
Not too different at the end of the day from non-FOSS software really.
But most of the paradigm shifting events fizzle out before product launch. The vast majority of Google's offerings work roughly as promised.
You miss the point - badly. TFA, and my comments, have nothing to do with functionality or paradigm shifts. They have to do with expanding the number of new eyes that Google captures and the number of times each set of eyes is exposed to Google advertising - and Google seems to be failing on both counts.
Granted, Google Catalogs is dead in the water, but they have a way above average success rate.
That's exactly the myth that TFA explodes. Google hasn't in fact been particularly sucessful in it's various secondary markets. They only reason their various ventures haven't gone dark (fizzled), is that Google can throw cash at keeping them running. (But, they don't throw any cash at marketing, very little cash at integration, and very little engineering talent or cash at completing the apps and making them competitive.)
Google does not need to be market leader in any particular fields. They just need to be good enough. Their business is presenting advertising that is targeted to an audience. Whatever they can do that keeps your eyes focused on their ads is a success.
That's one of the points of TFA - their potential number of eyes [attracted to Google's secondary offerings] is less than that of their competitors. Failing to grow that number or failing to increase the share is not a sucess. Failing to capture a significant share of the market is not a sucess.
My point is that Google provides resources that we all actually use, not some next big thing that will change the paradigm for good.
And that's exactly the point of TFA - 'we all' are not actually using Google's resources. In every category, except search and maps, it trails badly. (Maps merely trails.) The geek community is deeply in love with Google, but the geek community is only a small fraction of the total internet user community - and the numbers show it, regardless of the anecdotal evidence presented here.
The value of Catholic Confirmation, like other coming of age rituals, is primarily the change in the person going through the ritual.
You'd have a point - if that was what Confirmation does. It doesn't. Unlike the coming-of-age ceremonies common in aboriginal cultures - Confirmation doesn't change whether or not the society around you views you as a legal adult. (Which is the key defining point of a coming-of-age ceremony.)
I've already given you a citation to a well-known Western ceremony that helped define Western civilization.
No, you gave a link to a pop psychology website that doesn't understand the role of Confirmation in the Church.
I'm not going to spend any more time plugging every hole in the weak argument you're posting.
If you'd plugged any holes, you'd have a point. But to plug holes - you first have to to a) understand the issue and b) be able to frame a coherent argument. You've met niether criteria.
and in every way learning the hard way lessons I could have taught him
And professionals have never destroyed a rocket?
I never said they hadn't. Carmack's error (in my view) lies not in that he has destroyed a number of rockets - but that he has needlessly done so, and then created the impression that he 'learned' from those losses.
The question isn't whether Carmack makes mistakes, it's whether he learns from them.
No, the question is whether he needs to make them in the first place. He lost several early prototype engines because he didn't believe that his wiring harnesses had to built to anything even approaching standard best practices. After all, "having vibration proof connectors and temperature resistant insulation was what the 'dinosaurs' did" - and he wasn't a dinosaur. (That's not a direct quote, but it's the sense of it.) I.E. he knew full well what the best practices were - and he went ahead and violated them anyhow. All his rockets today are built with (at least low end) aerospace grade connectors and insulation.
This leave the casual reader of his updates believing that he's learning something and making progress - which in a fashion he is, and builds the Carmack Mythos. (He's far and above the most shameless ego promoter of the bunch.) But it obscures the fact what he's doing is re-inventing the wheel.
And I submit that it's your attitude that makes space expensive -- plan for every contingency, generate millions of dollars worth of reports, and launch a rocket once a year (if you're lucky and don't run over budget, or out of money, or...).
That attitude is a creation of your own mind - because I've never asked for such plans, or advocated such reports. I advocate building on the work of others - not duplicating it.
I think it's better to launch a lot of rockets in a year, with the clear knowledge that something WILL go wrong, learn from mistakes and failure, and build another one with improvements over the last one.
I agree 110%. where I part ways with Carmack is that I believe in standing on the shoulders of giants - not on those of midgets.
We don't disagree that everyone wants a commercial-grade cheap rocket, but given that, by your own admission, he's reduced the cost of a guidance system 20 to 1 (at least), he at least has some success to use as a counter-argument to the idea that everything has to be expensive.
He's reduced the cost of a *hobbiest grade prototype* guidance system. It's very much an open question whether he can produce a *commercial grade system* for those costs. That's where Carmack and I part ways - I believe his estimates are over optimistic and he refuses to adress the issue at all.
Seriously, if you think 150k is an average middle class salary,
I've never claimed that or thought that. All I did was point out that it's not an impossible or improbable goal for the average joe. Certainly their are professions that don't reach that goal - but that doesn't change the fact that there are professions that do.
The increasing number of calls to repeal this tax haven't arisen in a vaccum. There are numerous aging boomers and dual income families who live prudently and who see themselves as having a reasonable chance of leaving an estate that will be taxable - but who aren't (and don't see themselves as) wealthy by any stretch of the meaning. They bought houses and land years ago - and now the values have appreciated in value beyond their wildest dreams. Where I live, near Seattle, there are literally thousands of people who bought 1/2 or full acre plots in what was then wilderness, and is now virtually in the suburbs.
Yes, the tax only effects a minority - but that doesn't make it fair to them.
And my claim on basic research wasn't that his technology was unique, but that his incremental, cheap approach was.
My point is that his incremental cheap approach hasn't produced anything but an endless stream of models, prototypes, and projects abandoned mid-stream. It *looks* impressive as hell to the amateurs because he's actually Building Something. professional observers look at what he's building - note it's irrelevance, and move on.
He's a smart guy willing to learn from others (as his posts indicate), with his own money, and a successful BUSINESS track record. Those three things in combination puts him ahead of a lot of others who do a lot of talking, but precious little building.
He's destroyed several prototypes because he skipped the 'unneeded' step of testing the engine first, or not halting the test when indications were dodgy (which is far from a best practice), and in every way learning the hard way lessons I could have taught him - and I've never built or flown anything[1]. That, in my book, is not worthy of respect, it's a clear sign of a dilettante and an amatuer. The only reason he gets away with it - is because he has his own money. (And any student of business history can tell you that sucess in one field - especially one as limited as Carmack's, is little indicator or proficiency at another. Especially when they are so utterly different.)
[1] Though I did operate missiles for the USN, and have studied the aerospace field for decades.
Actually, I should've said something else about this. Carmack has posted in the past about various parts that are available off-the-shelf, but at an insane cost. Sure, that guidance system may be available from one of the big rocket companies, but you're going to pay ten million dollars for it.
If he claims ten million - he's bullshitting you. The last time I looked, by combining parts from LockMart, Sunstrand, and a few companies you've never heard of - the total cost was under a million dollars. (The specialized parts market for aerospace is much like any other, there's a lot of companies that never make the front pages of Fortune, if they ever get mentioned at all - but they are where the real action is at.)
Carmack developed one from scratch for a fraction of that price -- in a garage, in his spare time -- and learned a hell of lot in the process.
It will be interesting to see what happens when (if ever) he actually tries to make a commercial grade booster. Folks with million or multi million dollar payloads are rarely impressed with garage built prototype grade systems. They want insurance, the Feds want insurance - and insurance companies want numbers and quality assurance. And numbers and quality assurance costs real money. Carmack is building the Wright Flyer - but commercial operators will want a 737. His error lies in thinking that you can build a 737 on a Flyer budget.
I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone since I drive one handed anyway,
So? A lot of people believe that drive just as well stoned or drunk as they do sober - but the emprical evidence for all three is starkly clear; anything that distracts your attention from the road or impairs your reaction speed leads to an increase in accidents.
and particularly his engineering and orbital mechanics. He actually did the orbital mechanics calculations whenever he mentioned specific figures in a story. (I.E. if he said "We burned at 1.3G for 5 seconds to insert into a station-keeping orbit" it generally meant he had actually done that math.)
Sure he did that. But if he didn't find any numbers that worked - he simply didn't use any and forged ahead with his stories anyhow. Or he didn't even bother to try and find numbers - he just went with the dramatic flow. Leaving the impression that he was always mathematically correct - even when he had done no math at all.
Yah - I've seen the update. I also know that the DC-X did that a decade ago.
And how much did the DC-X cost to develop?
Doesn't matter how much the DC-X costs - I need merely demonstrated the fallacy of the Carmack's claim that he's done something special and unique, or your belief that he's doing basic research. The DC-X by existence proof does both of these things.
Give me a link to an off-the-shelf VTVL control system. I highly doubt you can, otherwise we'd see a lot more flights like that, not to mention the concerns that you could bolt one onto a big rocket and get an instant ICBM.
Not everything is on the web son. Not by a long shot. (Note that Elon Musk buys his controls and guidance system off the open market.) The only part that's not really available off the shelf is the engine.
The reason that there are not a lot more flights like that is that the number of people willing to invest significant money in what is (generously) an extremely speculative market is vanishingly small. It's the whole chicken-and-egg problem that plagues the alt.space/CATS movement. (That and the persistent and wrongheaded belief that some unspecified 'research' or 'technology' is needed to dramatically lower costs.)
That's just it - it's not bullshit, Carmack doesn't have the experience or knowledge to know that it's not. But fanboys, utterly unfamiliar with the full picture and the real history eat up his words.
You know, I read all sorts comments exactly like that for the X-prize -- that it was IMPOSSIBLE to build a suborbital craft for less than hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not from me you didn't - nor from anyone else conversant with the field.
Reading comments like this, I'm reminded of the old saying, "those that say it can't be done should never interrupt the person who is doing it."
You comments remind me of the old saying "none are so blind as those will not see".
Anyway, we'll know in five or ten years if Carmack is the real thing or a pretender.
I'll be pleased as punch to see Carmack suceed - don't get me wrong on that. But his track record and persistent naivete don't give me much hope.
You miss the point of the X-Prize and the result of the winner.
No - I understand the point more thoroughly than most. I've been following the X-prize for years, I'm not just a bandwagon jumper that started following it when it came down the wire.
SpaceShip One may be a point solution, but it is the catalyst for two new enterprises, The SpaceShip Company and Virgin Galactic. These companies are taking the baby step of SpaceShip One, and turning it into a profit-generating new industry, that will fund further developments that will eventually get to LEO.
That's the rationalization that's arisen since the Prize was won. It remains to see whether it will eventually reflect reality.
A LOT of seats are already sold on SpaceShip Two,
Not one single seat has been sold on SpaceShip Two. Not one. There's a resptectable number of reservations - but no seats have been bought, because none have been put up for sale.
and this revenue will generate more R & D for the next step in the future.
That's the theory - but there are an enourmous amount of unknowns between here and there.
Why? Let's face it - he's piddled away most of what he has spent to date on dead ends. (Or more accurately, on things he's given up on when the going gets tough.)
What you call "piddled away", I call "research". Do you think other companies that have tried to do something that has never been done before (in this case, cheap access to space) never run into dead ends? Do you think the Wright Brothers went from metal bars to airplanes in one step without any dead ends?
If Carmack was in the position of the Wright Brothers - I.E. doing basic research on an utterly unexplored field, you'd have a point. But he isn't. He's spent most of his time just doing whatever caught his eye and reinventing the wheel. It impresses the hell out of the fanboys - but if you actually know whats been going, and what the state of the art is - it's not very impressive.
The reason Carmack appears to have so many dead ends is because he lets us see them, unlike other companies who don't have that kind of confidence in themselves, and I give Carmack all the respect in the world for it.
No, the reason he appears to have so many dead ends is because he *has* had so many dead ends. The fact that others don't show you the dead ends doesn't change that one bit.
He's a dilettante who talks a great game - bur jumps from plan to scheme to gizmo like a frog in a frying pan.
That's EXACTLY what Carmack isn't -- a talker. The world is FULL of rocket people who are all talk, but don't build a damn thing. Have you seen the video on this update? The rocket goes up and down perfectly, like it's on a rail. That is not easy. That's a full-blown world-class guidance system. Note that rocket was a perfect demonstration of an OTRAG module.
Yah - I've seen the update. I also know that the DC-X did that a decade ago. I also know that guidance systems/actuators/etc have been available off the shelf for just about that long capable of performing a flight like that. but Carmack's DIY tinkerer attitude (impressive to the fanboys) forces him to reinvent the wheel every time. He talks a great game - but he never talks about what that.
Yes, and the Wright Bros were "just bicycle mechanics". Carmack may not have a piece of paper, but he's already built -- with his own hands -- more rocket engines and guidance systems than 98% of all supposed rocket engineers. If you follow his posts, it's obvious he's studied the subject and knows what he's talking about.
If you know the field *and* follow his posts - it's obvious how little he has studied and how unfamiliar he is with the subject.
But don't take my word for it. In this post, Carmack talks about Lutz Kayser, the principle behind the OTRAG project, visiting his shop and talking to Carmack. Not only that, he left some of OTRAG's proprietary hardware for them to look at. He's met with a lot of the principals who are doing good work. You may not take Carmack seriously, but they do.
Kayser has been recently been shopping OTRAG around to anyone who will listen. He's visited a *lot* of shops and offices. (But Carmack won't tell you that - because it dims the legend of Carmack.) That he found Carmack a willing audience and fanboy doesn't really mean much.
Apparently you didn't like his post, but he was absolutely right. There is so much talk about "billion dollar this" and "just give 10 billion for that", and it's ALL bullshit.
That's just it - it's not bullshit, Carmack doesn't have the experience or knowledge to know that it's not. But fanboys, utterly unfamiliar with the full picture and the real history eat up his words.
150k per year seems pretty damn nice to me. That would not make you solidly middle class.
What something 'seems' to you doesn't make much real difference. The fact is, for a college educated professional (the very definition of middle class) - that's an average salary with a decades or so experience.
You don't have to be a billionaire to be considered wealthy.
So what? We aren't talking about wealthy people - that's the entire *point*. You can amass a decent estate *without* being wealthy - except by applying the standards of the 50's or using a false definition of middle class.
The average household income in this country is closer to 50k per year.
That average includes a great number of people working minimum wage jobs - people who fill blue collar and lower class jobs, but who have been [falsely] redefined as 'middle class' because they live in the suburbs.
Lastly, safety. The important thing to note here is that you can say that the numbers ie individual deaths per person flown are similar - ie similar death rates, but you have to look at the developmental stages of the vehicles involved - half of the shuttle deaths have occured in the last 3 years and the rest in the last 20. Soyuz have not experienced a fatality for _35_ years.
From a mathematical standpoint - it doesn't matter when the deaths occured, only that they did occur. Yours is an emotional argument, not an engineering one.
They ironed the bugs out. It is solid Russian engineering - 'built like a brick shithouse' (australian slang).
That's just the thing - they haven't ironed all the bugs out. In the 80 odd flights to date, there is a continuing pattern of problems and failures. There have been at *least* four extremely near misses. (Read this report on landing accidents for example. Then consider that none of the launch accidents or on orbit accidents are covered.) Then consider this: Between Challenger and Columbia - the Shuttle flew more flights than Soyuz has in it's entire history. There have been eight flights of the latest (TMA) mark of Soyuz - four of which have had significant safety problems.
Or, in short; Soyuz has a long history of problems, problems equal to or greater than the ignored warnings from the O-rings or the foam. Anyone who believes that Soyuz is significantly safer than Shuttle is deluding themselves.
Re: 'Lost in Space'. I've skimmed it, it's mostly bullshit. His facts are correct - but the assumptions going in are utter fantasy and the conclusions drawn are thus rendered nonsense. Among other things; he makes the common fanboy mistake of assuming 'NASA had vision during Apollo and lost it'. NASA, in the Apollo era, did just what it's doing today - executing the will of the Administration. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what it's supposed to do as a branch of the goverment.
Don't get wrong - I'm with you when it comes to space travel. I just choose not to delude myself with the 'NASA is evil and the cause of all our woes' meme.
It's not a death tax, it's an estate tax. 99% of people who die don't pay it. Only those that leave large estates do. The myth that middle class households are affected by this tax is exactly that, a myth.
That's very odd - because I'm solidly middle class, and so is (was) my father-in-law. Yet we just barely missed having to pay estate taxes on our inheritance. It's quite easy, if you make around $150k/yr from your early thirties, and live prudently, to amass an inheritance that will get taxed. (And a salary in that range is hardly unheard of for the college educated professional.) If you have a couple each making that amount - it becomes even easier. That's why there is increasing pressure to repeal the estate tax - it doesn't serve it's original purpose (to penalize the wealthy and prevent hereditary fortunes, because the wealthy can afford lawyers, lobbyists, and loopholes) and penalizes the average joe who lives prudently rather than spending like a drunken sailor.
Slashdot Mirror
Both firsthand (USN experience) and second hand (about two decades of studying the history and practice of cryptography). It's a fairly well know fact among those who have studied the subject.
That's true... If you have an actual adversary. I seriously doubt any significant number of casual encryption users[1] having anything worth protecting.
That's true *if and only if* the information is worth protecting forever. If it doesn't need protecting forever - it doesn't need strong encryption as it doesn't need to be protected from theoretical future attacks.
[1] Folks who encrypt their email from paranoia or politics, as opposed to having something to actually hide. I.E. virtually everyone.
Yes.
It's a common misconception that encryption is supposed to be 'unbreakable' (for some large value of 'unbreakable'), in all instances. In the real world of security (I.E. DoD etc...) it's quite common to have the complexity and difficulty of the cipher or code to match the 'speed value' (to coin a term) of the information. For example, diplomatic messages need to be kept hidden essentially forever - thus strong encryption. Tactical communications between Army formations or Navy ships can have a much lesser grade of encryption applied because their value is almost always rendered moot before they can be broken.
The 'need' for ultra-strong, resist-attack forever grade encryption for personal use is an artifact of the (not uncommon) geek need to be [bigger|faster|stronger] than anyone else when it comes to computer stuff.
The problem is - it's not a straigtforward black and white accounting problem. There's a fair bit of psychology and politics in there as well.
It's easier to get money for a project already in progress, especially one showing results and with a high level of public popularity. It's much more difficult to do so for a 'start-up' project. In addition, the 'new' telescope would have had to weather years of budget cycles, in danger of cancellation each time - when it's constituency is small and there's nothing to show but a PowerPoint or two of what it *might* do. (That's assuming development went smoothly - a decidely dangerous assumption.)
That's precisely the point TFA makes - they aren't gaining significant market share.
Ah... The famous conceit - "I like chocolate ice cream - therefore everyone likes chocolate ice cream". (Except the biggest selling flavor is actually..... Vanilla.)
Now, while the plural of anecdote isn't data - I'll offer this: Of the hundred odd people I email regularly not one has a gmail adress. Not one.
a Mythbusters study, at best, has the scientific value of a 4chan thread.
Sure - if the software fits the clients needs (as is). Or the client has the money, or charm, to get the developer or a programmer to get the software to work or to add needed features. Otherwise, the client is at the mercy of the developers.
Not too different at the end of the day from non-FOSS software really.
That's exactly the myth that TFA explodes. Google hasn't in fact been particularly sucessful in it's various secondary markets. They only reason their various ventures haven't gone dark (fizzled), is that Google can throw cash at keeping them running. (But, they don't throw any cash at marketing, very little cash at integration, and very little engineering talent or cash at completing the apps and making them competitive.)
That's one of the points of TFA - their potential number of eyes [attracted to Google's secondary offerings] is less than that of their competitors. Failing to grow that number or failing to increase the share is not a sucess. Failing to capture a significant share of the market is not a sucess.
And that's exactly the point of TFA - 'we all' are not actually using Google's resources. In every category, except search and maps, it trails badly. (Maps merely trails.) The geek community is deeply in love with Google, but the geek community is only a small fraction of the total internet user community - and the numbers show it, regardless of the anecdotal evidence presented here.
You'd have a point - if that was what Confirmation does. It doesn't. Unlike the coming-of-age ceremonies common in aboriginal cultures - Confirmation doesn't change whether or not the society around you views you as a legal adult. (Which is the key defining point of a coming-of-age ceremony.)
No, you gave a link to a pop psychology website that doesn't understand the role of Confirmation in the Church.
If you'd plugged any holes, you'd have a point. But to plug holes - you first have to to a) understand the issue and b) be able to frame a coherent argument. You've met niether criteria.
I never said they hadn't. Carmack's error (in my view) lies not in that he has destroyed a number of rockets - but that he has needlessly done so, and then created the impression that he 'learned' from those losses.
No, the question is whether he needs to make them in the first place. He lost several early prototype engines because he didn't believe that his wiring harnesses had to built to anything even approaching standard best practices. After all, "having vibration proof connectors and temperature resistant insulation was what the 'dinosaurs' did" - and he wasn't a dinosaur. (That's not a direct quote, but it's the sense of it.) I.E. he knew full well what the best practices were - and he went ahead and violated them anyhow. All his rockets today are built with (at least low end) aerospace grade connectors and insulation.
This leave the casual reader of his updates believing that he's learning something and making progress - which in a fashion he is, and builds the Carmack Mythos. (He's far and above the most shameless ego promoter of the bunch.) But it obscures the fact what he's doing is re-inventing the wheel.
That attitude is a creation of your own mind - because I've never asked for such plans, or advocated such reports. I advocate building on the work of others - not duplicating it.
I agree 110%. where I part ways with Carmack is that I believe in standing on the shoulders of giants - not on those of midgets.
He's reduced the cost of a *hobbiest grade prototype* guidance system. It's very much an open question whether he can produce a *commercial grade system* for those costs. That's where Carmack and I part ways - I believe his estimates are over optimistic and he refuses to adress the issue at all.
The increasing number of calls to repeal this tax haven't arisen in a vaccum. There are numerous aging boomers and dual income families who live prudently and who see themselves as having a reasonable chance of leaving an estate that will be taxable - but who aren't (and don't see themselves as) wealthy by any stretch of the meaning. They bought houses and land years ago - and now the values have appreciated in value beyond their wildest dreams. Where I live, near Seattle, there are literally thousands of people who bought 1/2 or full acre plots in what was then wilderness, and is now virtually in the suburbs.
Yes, the tax only effects a minority - but that doesn't make it fair to them.
My point is that his incremental cheap approach hasn't produced anything but an endless stream of models, prototypes, and projects abandoned mid-stream. It *looks* impressive as hell to the amateurs because he's actually Building Something. professional observers look at what he's building - note it's irrelevance, and move on.
He's destroyed several prototypes because he skipped the 'unneeded' step of testing the engine first, or not halting the test when indications were dodgy (which is far from a best practice), and in every way learning the hard way lessons I could have taught him - and I've never built or flown anything[1]. That, in my book, is not worthy of respect, it's a clear sign of a dilettante and an amatuer. The only reason he gets away with it - is because he has his own money. (And any student of business history can tell you that sucess in one field - especially one as limited as Carmack's, is little indicator or proficiency at another. Especially when they are so utterly different.)
[1] Though I did operate missiles for the USN, and have studied the aerospace field for decades.
If he claims ten million - he's bullshitting you. The last time I looked, by combining parts from LockMart, Sunstrand, and a few companies you've never heard of - the total cost was under a million dollars. (The specialized parts market for aerospace is much like any other, there's a lot of companies that never make the front pages of Fortune, if they ever get mentioned at all - but they are where the real action is at.)
It will be interesting to see what happens when (if ever) he actually tries to make a commercial grade booster. Folks with million or multi million dollar payloads are rarely impressed with garage built prototype grade systems. They want insurance, the Feds want insurance - and insurance companies want numbers and quality assurance. And numbers and quality assurance costs real money. Carmack is building the Wright Flyer - but commercial operators will want a 737. His error lies in thinking that you can build a 737 on a Flyer budget.
So? A lot of people believe that drive just as well stoned or drunk as they do sober - but the emprical evidence for all three is starkly clear; anything that distracts your attention from the road or impairs your reaction speed leads to an increase in accidents.
No, RAH *appeared* to care greatly.
Sure he did that. But if he didn't find any numbers that worked - he simply didn't use any and forged ahead with his stories anyhow. Or he didn't even bother to try and find numbers - he just went with the dramatic flow. Leaving the impression that he was always mathematically correct - even when he had done no math at all.
Doesn't matter how much the DC-X costs - I need merely demonstrated the fallacy of the Carmack's claim that he's done something special and unique, or your belief that he's doing basic research. The DC-X by existence proof does both of these things.
Not everything is on the web son. Not by a long shot. (Note that Elon Musk buys his controls and guidance system off the open market.) The only part that's not really available off the shelf is the engine.
The reason that there are not a lot more flights like that is that the number of people willing to invest significant money in what is (generously) an extremely speculative market is vanishingly small. It's the whole chicken-and-egg problem that plagues the alt.space/CATS movement. (That and the persistent and wrongheaded belief that some unspecified 'research' or 'technology' is needed to dramatically lower costs.)
Not from me you didn't - nor from anyone else conversant with the field.
You comments remind me of the old saying "none are so blind as those will not see".
I'll be pleased as punch to see Carmack suceed - don't get me wrong on that. But his track record and persistent naivete don't give me much hope.
No - I understand the point more thoroughly than most. I've been following the X-prize for years, I'm not just a bandwagon jumper that started following it when it came down the wire.
That's the rationalization that's arisen since the Prize was won. It remains to see whether it will eventually reflect reality.
Not one single seat has been sold on SpaceShip Two. Not one. There's a resptectable number of reservations - but no seats have been bought, because none have been put up for sale.
That's the theory - but there are an enourmous amount of unknowns between here and there.
If Carmack was in the position of the Wright Brothers - I.E. doing basic research on an utterly unexplored field, you'd have a point. But he isn't. He's spent most of his time just doing whatever caught his eye and reinventing the wheel. It impresses the hell out of the fanboys - but if you actually know whats been going, and what the state of the art is - it's not very impressive.
No, the reason he appears to have so many dead ends is because he *has* had so many dead ends. The fact that others don't show you the dead ends doesn't change that one bit.
Yah - I've seen the update. I also know that the DC-X did that a decade ago. I also know that guidance systems/actuators/etc have been available off the shelf for just about that long capable of performing a flight like that. but Carmack's DIY tinkerer attitude (impressive to the fanboys) forces him to reinvent the wheel every time. He talks a great game - but he never talks about what that.
If you know the field *and* follow his posts - it's obvious how little he has studied and how unfamiliar he is with the subject.
Kayser has been recently been shopping OTRAG around to anyone who will listen. He's visited a *lot* of shops and offices. (But Carmack won't tell you that - because it dims the legend of Carmack.) That he found Carmack a willing audience and fanboy doesn't really mean much.
That's just it - it's not bullshit, Carmack doesn't have the experience or knowledge to know that it's not. But fanboys, utterly unfamiliar with the full picture and the real history eat up his words.
What something 'seems' to you doesn't make much real difference. The fact is, for a college educated professional (the very definition of middle class) - that's an average salary with a decades or so experience.
So what? We aren't talking about wealthy people - that's the entire *point*. You can amass a decent estate *without* being wealthy - except by applying the standards of the 50's or using a false definition of middle class.
That average includes a great number of people working minimum wage jobs - people who fill blue collar and lower class jobs, but who have been [falsely] redefined as 'middle class' because they live in the suburbs.
From a mathematical standpoint - it doesn't matter when the deaths occured, only that they did occur. Yours is an emotional argument, not an engineering one.
That's just the thing - they haven't ironed all the bugs out. In the 80 odd flights to date, there is a continuing pattern of problems and failures. There have been at *least* four extremely near misses. (Read this report on landing accidents for example. Then consider that none of the launch accidents or on orbit accidents are covered.) Then consider this: Between Challenger and Columbia - the Shuttle flew more flights than Soyuz has in it's entire history. There have been eight flights of the latest (TMA) mark of Soyuz - four of which have had significant safety problems.
Or, in short; Soyuz has a long history of problems, problems equal to or greater than the ignored warnings from the O-rings or the foam. Anyone who believes that Soyuz is significantly safer than Shuttle is deluding themselves.
Re: 'Lost in Space'. I've skimmed it, it's mostly bullshit. His facts are correct - but the assumptions going in are utter fantasy and the conclusions drawn are thus rendered nonsense. Among other things; he makes the common fanboy mistake of assuming 'NASA had vision during Apollo and lost it'. NASA, in the Apollo era, did just what it's doing today - executing the will of the Administration. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what it's supposed to do as a branch of the goverment.
Don't get wrong - I'm with you when it comes to space travel. I just choose not to delude myself with the 'NASA is evil and the cause of all our woes' meme.
Oddly enough - this is exactly what Gates intends. To hand down *some* wealth - enough to have financial freedom, but not enough to have a free ride.
That's very odd - because I'm solidly middle class, and so is (was) my father-in-law. Yet we just barely missed having to pay estate taxes on our inheritance. It's quite easy, if you make around $150k/yr from your early thirties, and live prudently, to amass an inheritance that will get taxed. (And a salary in that range is hardly unheard of for the college educated professional.) If you have a couple each making that amount - it becomes even easier. That's why there is increasing pressure to repeal the estate tax - it doesn't serve it's original purpose (to penalize the wealthy and prevent hereditary fortunes, because the wealthy can afford lawyers, lobbyists, and loopholes) and penalizes the average joe who lives prudently rather than spending like a drunken sailor.