technical question like listing all the container classes in STL from the top of my head
Do experienced devs even know this? I've programmed in several languages and I could never give a list of functions on demand. That's what reference material is for.
You honestly dodged a bullet with that one; any company that asks for such a thing has a damaged tech culture.
Technical questioning, even if often misused in the corporate world, is a fine art with many subtleties.
When I was in the Navy and giving qualification signature interviews and sitting qualification boards, I kept a stock of that kind of question to hand with 'malice aforethought'. Why? Specifically to separate out the guys who memorized everything without thinking (which was undesirable) from the guys who thought and prioritized and learned (which isn't the same thing as memorizing and is desirable). Depending on the system/situation "grab OP46189 volume 7 and look it up" was exactly the right answer. You didn't need to know everything, but you did need to know where and when to look it up.
Also, to give me a chance to verbally smack twerps like you who hadn't grasped this yet upside the head.
Presuming you're talking about nuclear warheads (the topic of the discussion)... Back in the 50's and 60's it was mostly determined by how many weapons we could produce - the unholy alliance between SAC and the nuclear weapons production labs was the "military-inductrial alliance" Eisenhower was warning us against. From the 70's onward it was determined by a complex interaction of internal (US) politics and treaty negotiations.
The weapon folks try to figure out what the target defenses are capable of before the warheads reach their target, the really smart people start crunching numbers and come up with a solution designed to over-saturate their ( known ) defenses. We don't throw one warhead at a target, we throw several to ensure one gets through.
Um... nonsense. (The fact that there isn't effective defenses against most classes of nuclear weapons aside.) We throw (threw, since we're talking before the reductions of the 1990's) several at what appears to be a single target to the ignorant and the uninitiated to justify the massive number of warheads. To the way of thinking of the military planners - that HQ is a target, and the airfield is a target, and that hangar complex is a target... so even if a single warhead would get all three in actuality, they sent three anyhow.
As far as conventional weapons... you're partly right, partly wrong, and partly hallucinating. But I'm not going there as conventional weapons aren't the topic of discussion.
TBH though, our land based delivery systems are pretty much honeypot targets anymore. Bomber, sub and cruise missile delivery are much harder to target due to their mobility and not knowing if a sub is sitting just off your coast in the event you do something stupid is quite a deterrent in its own right.
Since bombers are landbased delivery systems... you really haven't thought this through very well. Nor do we have sub launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles. We do have submarine launched ballistic missiles, but they stay well the hell back out in the deeps where it's safe... and don't go anywhere near coastlines except for liberty ports and home ports.
However, put one of these weapons in the hands of a fanatic who has no issues about beheading folks, or volunteering to become a suicide bomber to kill infidels in the name of some pretend deity in the sky and all the deterrent in the world isn't going to stop them. Deterrent doesn't work with these types. You have to render them inoperable for lack of a better way to phrase it.
Further, we can only hope that some other countries like China and India are being honest with the numbers they claim. The US and Russia may be completely outpaced and not know it.
That's the folly of the Cold War and the Cold Warrior mentality - WE MUST HAVE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY. Weapons piled on weapons piled on weapons neither increases security nor improves the chances of "winning" a nuclear exchange. Once you have enough to dismember the Other Guy (or to at least put him in the national equivalent of an ICU), more weapons just means you have more weapons - you can only destroy him once no matter how many weapons you have. That's the essential philosophy of Minimal Deterrence.
*Sigh* A former cold warrior you may be, but all you do is give proof to what I've long said - a worm's eye view doesn't make you an expert. Or even knowledgeable. (And yeah, the view of a launch control officer is pretty low level). Having been an SSBN weapons tech (and FTB to be precise), I'm quite aware of just how little can be seen from the operating level.
America's nuclear strategy isn't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The strategy we're working towards now is Minimal Deterrence - the smallest number of weapons needed for deterrence.
Regular finance account reporting of how the money is being used should be required. If you can't handle it, don't ask for money.
Such production of reporting and auditing of reports has costs and could consume significant amount of project funds.
Nonsense. If it's a serious project, they should already have an accountant or at least some form of accounting software - once you have that, it's pretty simple to produce a basic cash flow report. Regardless of what your business is, tracking the financials is basic to it. If not just to know whether or not you can afford that widget or software package, because come the end of the year you have to let the IRS know. If the project doesn't have financial tracking, it's a sign to run - far and fast.
It should be up to the backers and an agreement with the backers made in advance, regarding what will be required, not up to some random third party to decide what reporting will be imposed on them both.
Kickstarter isn't a random third party. As the great-grandparent said, they're essentially assuming the role of the stock exchange - as the middleman and facilitator of the process. Thus they have an interest in seeing that the process is transparent and to some degree regulated. Even for private investment, sans the market, the SEC has rules separating investors into two classes based on their ability to determine and withstand risk. As the arbiter of the market, Kickstarter has similar motivations to protect investors.
Now this being Slashdot, there will be a chorus of people insisting we don't need a middleman or and arbiter... to which I say, go try and raise significant funds on your own sans such a middleman. Then you'll understand why a central marketplace with at least some level of consumer (investor) protection is an idea that has recurred throughout human history. It's a win-win situation for all parties. (And before you rant and froth about Wall Street - I'll point out the problems there are implementation and QA errors, not specification errors.)
Still, with mass at a premium it would be more efficient to send up a stockpile of raw plastic rather than many combinations of different spare parts.
For the relatively small fraction of parts that will break that are printable plastics - that's a great thing. (At least with anything resembling current technology.) For everything else, especially the electronics parts that will represent the greatest proportion of the failures... not so much.
And after you do all of those things, sometimes something breaks that you don't have a spare for. And when the nearest replacement part is nine months away, you're screwed.
Sure, there's that one-in-a-million chance. I never argued that point - only that you have no idea how the world works. And by insisting that we must take into account that one-in-a-million chance, I'd add the argument that you're resistant to any suggestion that you might know less than you do.
Being able to make spare parts is a GOOD thing.
Another point I never argued against. I merely pointed out just how far we are from being anywhere near that stage.
And the fewer things you have to carry along to make spare parts with, the better.
Again, a point I never argued against. (Etc... etc... just repeating the above.)
3D printing is one of those things that will be pretty much essential for successful manned missions farther away than the moon.
Once 3D printing develops from it's current "stone knives and bearskins" stage of development and reaches the 21st century, sure. But even once the far off day arrives where we can print in a wide variety of materials (I.E. those suited to the task of the parts being replaced) and assuming it reaches the stage where the printed parts don't require substantial hand finishing for precision... it's highly unlikely to be able to print electrical and electronic components, particularly the IC's that will represent a very large component of the failed parts.
Being unable to fix broken things will be fatal if the nearest spare parts are nine months away, and a 3D printer or two can, conceivably, replace a great many individual spare parts....
That's why you carry spare parts with you. And why you "design for maintenance". And why you do extensive development and testing beforehand to figure out what parts are most likely to break. And design parts to be reliable. And reinforce the parts where you can. And... well, there's a vast amount of and dedicated sub fields of engineering dedicated to this kind of thing. No professional goes off the beaten path with the attitude of "oh well, I'm just gonna die if something breaks". There's a reason why "lack of spares" pretty much has never come up in any serious discussion of lunar colonies or missions to Mars. (Not until the amateurs, being largely blithely unaware of how the world works, started playing around with 3D printing.)
Disclaimer: In addition to years of actually seriously studying the space program... I've lived where high reliability could mean the difference between life and death and spares were limited to what was on hand as there was no parts place up on the main road or next day mail. (I.E. a crewman on an SSBN.)
And if you're away for an extended period and want to take a lot of photos or video? That 32GB may not be enough
On my 16gig 4S I had a ton of apps, nine gig of music, and over 400 pictures - and room to spare. If the 32gig isn't big enough, the problem is more likely self control than anything else.
the ability to buy a few SD cards and swap them out as you fill them up sure would be useful. If that's not a use case you'll ever encounter, then great, you're all set, but that doesn't mean it's not a use case that exists.
If you've reached that point (exceeding 32 gig) in taking pictures you're either a) a pro who should be using a more appropriate tool in the first place.... or b) taking a ton of pictures you'll never look at again. I'm not arguing it's not a use case, I'm arguing that it's a use case out on the edge of the bell curve. Android is merely pandering by supporting it, and it gives them a sales point over Apple. Meanwhile, 16 gig phones account for half of all iPhones.
Movies are irrelevant, as they weren't the topic of conversation. And your comment about music is bilge - 9 gigs (my current collection) is over a thousand songs. If you can't find an "appropriate" (whatever the heck you mean by that) selection in there, the problem isn't lack of memory on your phone.
Seriously, like several commenters on this subthread, you're way the heck out on the end of the bell curve - but blithely unaware of it.
Streaming stuff is fine in urban areas, but if you travel outside of urban areas with little phone service regularly, and you don't want to carry another device, it's pretty irritating to be significantly limited in the amount to music you can carry.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick - just how much music do you need? On my (recently replaced with a 32gb 5S*) 16gb 4S I could have a ton of apps, several hundred photos, and still have room for six days (continuous play, no repeat) worth of tunes.
As the grandparent said, this isn't some sneaky marketing plan... I suspect16gb really is enough for most common usage.
You are missing the point. All of my Android phones include the ability to add a MicroSD card. I don't care how much memory is on the phone, my data (pictures etc) doesn't reside there. Apple's continued refusal to add a MicroSD slot is just more of their way of ripping off their customers.
I don't need to put an SD card in my iPhone - I have the proper cable and 3tb of HDD capacity. The 32gig of memory on my phone is just short term storage for anything I want to keep.
These aren't NASA flights - they're seats on bus (or airplane if you prefer) routes which NASA has bought from Boeing (or SpaceX). Thus Boeing (or SpaceX) is free (in theory) to do whatever the hell they want with any spare capacity.
In 30 years, the way things are going the UK proper may as well be bankrupt, socially and racially divided, a shadow of its former glory
Frankly, British bankruptcy is always and always has been thirty years off for the thirty odd years I've been paying attention to international politics.
Why go the opposite direction, even if for some reason you really do have the need for those particular properties?
Because for any given hobby... there's always going to be someone out at the end of the bell curve. The photographer with $190k worth of gear who drives a $500 car and lives in a $5k house. The model train enthusiast who builds a 2500sqft house around his 1800sqft train layout. The IT geek with enough horsepower in his basement to run a decent sized ISP.. They're all birds of a feather.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I actually know the first two examples personally.)
Which is still the truth, in general. Photography on a cell phone does not equate to photography with a digital camera -- knowing what f-stop is, or shutter speed, or focal length, or a LOT of the other of the fine-grain minutiae that comes from a lot of time spent with film and digital cameras taking hundreds, if not thousands, of photographs.
No, photography on a cell phone does not equate to photography that deals with fine grained minutiae. But, so what? Technical minutiae isn't art. It's what geeks and wannabees toss around in order to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important.
All that experience can be accumulated hundreds of times faster in digital where you can see immediate results.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that for the vast majority. Why worry about composition, aperture, exposure, and white balance when one can burn through dozens upon dozens of photos, previewing the results immediately waiting for something worthwhile to show up, and sort/crop/align later.
You aren't disagreeing with the grandparent, you're talking about apples while he's talking oranges. And in reality, you're both correct.
He's correct in that by speeding up the loop (from taking the picture to reviewing the finished product) it's possible to learn photography much faster today than in the film era. You're correct that it's possible to produce a good image by sheer luck and Photoshop.
I've seen this first hand with my daughters and their friends. The shotgun approach may produce the occasional interesting photos but does not lead to refined skills required to produce stunning images.
But here's where you go off the rails into apple territory - your daughter and her friends are not all photographers. And just because they aren't interested in actually learning photography, that doesn't preclude those that are interested from taking advantage of the faster loop to learn from doing so.
Looking at Bezos's New Shepherd Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing vehicle you might think that somewhere along the line Jeff caught a glimpse of Boeing's old design.
Maybe, maybe not. The same basic design was proposed as a reusable first stage for the Space Shuttle (in it's first incarnation as a crew taxi) by (IIRC) McDonnell Douglas back in the early/mid 1960's.
Charlie Stross recently posted a very good take on this: This is a permanent change. Whatever happens during the first few years is basically irrelevant, compared to the long-term results. Did Norway separating from Sweden cause short-term economic upheaval? Does that matter at all a century later?
Yes it matters a century later - because what happens in those first few years sets the stage for what happens a century later. Historical events don't 'just happen' and then toddle off into the history books without leaving long term effects, real and "imaginary" (psychological).
I didn't say it was better - or worse. I merely pointed out that the two bids were not identical, and thus comparisons drawn on the basis (assumption) that they were identical were deeply flawed.
I did not think SpaceX even with its excellent track record would have convinced the bureaucrats to give them a solid chance instead of just give everything to Boeing as usual.
SpaceX's excellent track record? Ship me some of what you're smoking, as it must be good stuff. (Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff?)
SpaceX's track record is far from excellent. The first flight of the Falcon 9 was six months late, the first flight of the Falcon/Dragon COTS was two years late. (And that's pretty much been the pattern to date - they've been unable to demonstrate a consistent ability to meet launch schedules or to maintain a significant flight rate.) They've had a steady series of technical problems with both the Falcon booster and the Dragon CRS capsules. Granted, they're getting better, but their track record overall is spotty at best.
That is why SpaceX was given a solid chance rather than the whole enchilada.
Get your facts more straight. Dragon V2 is in fact derived from the Dragon CRS, but it's not the same vehicle and emphatically has not been flying for two years.
Boeing got nearly twice the funding for a conservative, unimaginative Apollo capsule
What's wrong with a "conservative unimaginative" design? This wasn't intended to be a beauty contest or to provide geek stroke material, it's a contract for workaday vehicles and services. And as for costs, you've got to remember the difference between the vehicles - SpaceX bid a derivative of an existing craft (I.E. with a lot of the development already paid for), while Boeing bid a new design. Comparing straight up dollars is not comparing like-to-like.
Slashdot Mirror
Technical questioning, even if often misused in the corporate world, is a fine art with many subtleties.
When I was in the Navy and giving qualification signature interviews and sitting qualification boards, I kept a stock of that kind of question to hand with 'malice aforethought'. Why? Specifically to separate out the guys who memorized everything without thinking (which was undesirable) from the guys who thought and prioritized and learned (which isn't the same thing as memorizing and is desirable). Depending on the system/situation "grab OP46189 volume 7 and look it up" was exactly the right answer. You didn't need to know everything, but you did need to know where and when to look it up.
Also, to give me a chance to verbally smack twerps like you who hadn't grasped this yet upside the head.
Presuming you're talking about nuclear warheads (the topic of the discussion)... Back in the 50's and 60's it was mostly determined by how many weapons we could produce - the unholy alliance between SAC and the nuclear weapons production labs was the "military-inductrial alliance" Eisenhower was warning us against. From the 70's onward it was determined by a complex interaction of internal (US) politics and treaty negotiations.
Um... nonsense. (The fact that there isn't effective defenses against most classes of nuclear weapons aside.) We throw (threw, since we're talking before the reductions of the 1990's) several at what appears to be a single target to the ignorant and the uninitiated to justify the massive number of warheads. To the way of thinking of the military planners - that HQ is a target, and the airfield is a target, and that hangar complex is a target... so even if a single warhead would get all three in actuality, they sent three anyhow.
As far as conventional weapons... you're partly right, partly wrong, and partly hallucinating. But I'm not going there as conventional weapons aren't the topic of discussion.
Since bombers are landbased delivery systems... you really haven't thought this through very well. Nor do we have sub launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles. We do have submarine launched ballistic missiles, but they stay well the hell back out in the deeps where it's safe... and don't go anywhere near coastlines except for liberty ports and home ports.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
That's the folly of the Cold War and the Cold Warrior mentality - WE MUST HAVE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY. Weapons piled on weapons piled on weapons neither increases security nor improves the chances of "winning" a nuclear exchange. Once you have enough to dismember the Other Guy (or to at least put him in the national equivalent of an ICU), more weapons just means you have more weapons - you can only destroy him once no matter how many weapons you have. That's the essential philosophy of Minimal Deterrence.
*Sigh* A former cold warrior you may be, but all you do is give proof to what I've long said - a worm's eye view doesn't make you an expert. Or even knowledgeable. (And yeah, the view of a launch control officer is pretty low level). Having been an SSBN weapons tech (and FTB to be precise), I'm quite aware of just how little can be seen from the operating level.
America's nuclear strategy isn't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The strategy we're working towards now is Minimal Deterrence - the smallest number of weapons needed for deterrence.
Nonsense. If it's a serious project, they should already have an accountant or at least some form of accounting software - once you have that, it's pretty simple to produce a basic cash flow report. Regardless of what your business is, tracking the financials is basic to it. If not just to know whether or not you can afford that widget or software package, because come the end of the year you have to let the IRS know. If the project doesn't have financial tracking, it's a sign to run - far and fast.
Kickstarter isn't a random third party. As the great-grandparent said, they're essentially assuming the role of the stock exchange - as the middleman and facilitator of the process. Thus they have an interest in seeing that the process is transparent and to some degree regulated. Even for private investment, sans the market, the SEC has rules separating investors into two classes based on their ability to determine and withstand risk. As the arbiter of the market, Kickstarter has similar motivations to protect investors.
Now this being Slashdot, there will be a chorus of people insisting we don't need a middleman or and arbiter... to which I say, go try and raise significant funds on your own sans such a middleman. Then you'll understand why a central marketplace with at least some level of consumer (investor) protection is an idea that has recurred throughout human history. It's a win-win situation for all parties. (And before you rant and froth about Wall Street - I'll point out the problems there are implementation and QA errors, not specification errors.)
For the relatively small fraction of parts that will break that are printable plastics - that's a great thing. (At least with anything resembling current technology.) For everything else, especially the electronics parts that will represent the greatest proportion of the failures... not so much.
Sure, there's that one-in-a-million chance. I never argued that point - only that you have no idea how the world works. And by insisting that we must take into account that one-in-a-million chance, I'd add the argument that you're resistant to any suggestion that you might know less than you do.
Another point I never argued against. I merely pointed out just how far we are from being anywhere near that stage.
Again, a point I never argued against. (Etc... etc... just repeating the above.)
Once 3D printing develops from it's current "stone knives and bearskins" stage of development and reaches the 21st century, sure. But even once the far off day arrives where we can print in a wide variety of materials (I.E. those suited to the task of the parts being replaced) and assuming it reaches the stage where the printed parts don't require substantial hand finishing for precision... it's highly unlikely to be able to print electrical and electronic components, particularly the IC's that will represent a very large component of the failed parts.
That's why you carry spare parts with you. And why you "design for maintenance". And why you do extensive development and testing beforehand to figure out what parts are most likely to break. And design parts to be reliable. And reinforce the parts where you can. And... well, there's a vast amount of and dedicated sub fields of engineering dedicated to this kind of thing. No professional goes off the beaten path with the attitude of "oh well, I'm just gonna die if something breaks". There's a reason why "lack of spares" pretty much has never come up in any serious discussion of lunar colonies or missions to Mars. (Not until the amateurs, being largely blithely unaware of how the world works, started playing around with 3D printing.)
Disclaimer: In addition to years of actually seriously studying the space program... I've lived where high reliability could mean the difference between life and death and spares were limited to what was on hand as there was no parts place up on the main road or next day mail. (I.E. a crewman on an SSBN.)
Translation: You're an ignorant jackass with the IQ of a rotting roadkill.
On my 16gig 4S I had a ton of apps, nine gig of music, and over 400 pictures - and room to spare. If the 32gig isn't big enough, the problem is more likely self control than anything else.
If you've reached that point (exceeding 32 gig) in taking pictures you're either a) a pro who should be using a more appropriate tool in the first place.... or b) taking a ton of pictures you'll never look at again. I'm not arguing it's not a use case, I'm arguing that it's a use case out on the edge of the bell curve. Android is merely pandering by supporting it, and it gives them a sales point over Apple. Meanwhile, 16 gig phones account for half of all iPhones.
Movies are irrelevant, as they weren't the topic of conversation. And your comment about music is bilge - 9 gigs (my current collection) is over a thousand songs. If you can't find an "appropriate" (whatever the heck you mean by that) selection in there, the problem isn't lack of memory on your phone.
Seriously, like several commenters on this subthread, you're way the heck out on the end of the bell curve - but blithely unaware of it.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick - just how much music do you need? On my (recently replaced with a 32gb 5S*) 16gb 4S I could have a ton of apps, several hundred photos, and still have room for six days (continuous play, no repeat) worth of tunes.
As the grandparent said, this isn't some sneaky marketing plan... I suspect16gb really is enough for most common usage.
*Pretty much just because I could.
I don't need to put an SD card in my iPhone - I have the proper cable and 3tb of HDD capacity. The 32gig of memory on my phone is just short term storage for anything I want to keep.
These aren't NASA flights - they're seats on bus (or airplane if you prefer) routes which NASA has bought from Boeing (or SpaceX). Thus Boeing (or SpaceX) is free (in theory) to do whatever the hell they want with any spare capacity.
The issue isn't whether or not he won, so, nice handwaving there. The issue is the State Of The Union and our international relations.
Frankly, British bankruptcy is always and always has been thirty years off for the thirty odd years I've been paying attention to international politics.
Because for any given hobby... there's always going to be someone out at the end of the bell curve. The photographer with $190k worth of gear who drives a $500 car and lives in a $5k house. The model train enthusiast who builds a 2500sqft house around his 1800sqft train layout. The IT geek with enough horsepower in his basement to run a decent sized ISP.. They're all birds of a feather.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I actually know the first two examples personally.)
No, photography on a cell phone does not equate to photography that deals with fine grained minutiae. But, so what? Technical minutiae isn't art. It's what geeks and wannabees toss around in order to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important.
You aren't disagreeing with the grandparent, you're talking about apples while he's talking oranges. And in reality, you're both correct.
He's correct in that by speeding up the loop (from taking the picture to reviewing the finished product) it's possible to learn photography much faster today than in the film era. You're correct that it's possible to produce a good image by sheer luck and Photoshop.
But here's where you go off the rails into apple territory - your daughter and her friends are not all photographers. And just because they aren't interested in actually learning photography, that doesn't preclude those that are interested from taking advantage of the faster loop to learn from doing so.
Maybe, maybe not. The same basic design was proposed as a reusable first stage for the Space Shuttle (in it's first incarnation as a crew taxi) by (IIRC) McDonnell Douglas back in the early/mid 1960's.
Yes it matters a century later - because what happens in those first few years sets the stage for what happens a century later. Historical events don't 'just happen' and then toddle off into the history books without leaving long term effects, real and "imaginary" (psychological).
I didn't say it was better - or worse. I merely pointed out that the two bids were not identical, and thus comparisons drawn on the basis (assumption) that they were identical were deeply flawed.
SpaceX's excellent track record? Ship me some of what you're smoking, as it must be good stuff. (Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff?)
SpaceX's track record is far from excellent. The first flight of the Falcon 9 was six months late, the first flight of the Falcon/Dragon COTS was two years late. (And that's pretty much been the pattern to date - they've been unable to demonstrate a consistent ability to meet launch schedules or to maintain a significant flight rate.) They've had a steady series of technical problems with both the Falcon booster and the Dragon CRS capsules. Granted, they're getting better, but their track record overall is spotty at best.
That is why SpaceX was given a solid chance rather than the whole enchilada.
Get your facts more straight. Dragon V2 is in fact derived from the Dragon CRS, but it's not the same vehicle and emphatically has not been flying for two years.
What's wrong with a "conservative unimaginative" design? This wasn't intended to be a beauty contest or to provide geek stroke material, it's a contract for workaday vehicles and services. And as for costs, you've got to remember the difference between the vehicles - SpaceX bid a derivative of an existing craft (I.E. with a lot of the development already paid for), while Boeing bid a new design. Comparing straight up dollars is not comparing like-to-like.