Sure, they'll "light instantly" at 1/2 or less power, and then slowly work their way up to something where you can see the burglar standing in the back yard.
SAP and Siebel have together, fucked up more companies than anyone ever originally thought possible. Most large-scale "process oriented" software usually does, sooner or later.
Why do you call something that does its job well "behind"?
Spoken like a PC salesman...
Rad-Hardened CPU's and what-not are time-tested, and just work. A lot of the reason that they are "behind" isn't because new rad-hardened components can't be made (in fact they have), it's because satellite engineers have higher discipline levels when it comes to code-reuse and risk-management of software.
Using an old chip (if it's fast enough and meets other requirements) with code that has not caused a failure of any multi-million dollar pieces of on-orbit hardware (and thus, lost if it dies) -- is good engineering.
More Terrestrial engineers could learn from those guys, really. Optimization and solid code are critical on board satellites. Crap bloatware that requires the latest and greatest bloatware engines (new CPUs) isn't welcome. Huzzah!
I'm not out to smear science. I think science -- real science -- has led humans to a better understanding of our being and world.
Real science is actually "un-smearable" really, it's impossible for a logical being to argue things learned by real science. (We're not logical beings though, but that's a topic for another day. We're primarily emotional beings with just enough logic to hopefully adapt and learn quickly enough that we don't become extinct, each time our species is threatened with extinction.)
Your emotional diatribe that there was any science in TFA is wrong. You also attack some perceived agenda you think I have. It's not wrong to state that your theory hasn't been proven yet. There's only observations of gloabal warming, and there will never be a global-scale test that takes into account all variables, that will prove or disprove global warming as a concept, scientifically.
You claim that the article "supported" your belief that global warming is happening, when even the scientist quoted said there wasn't any scientific evidence that global warming caused the pretty clouds, and that it only "suggested" something completely misunderstood at this time.
Scientists are generally very careful with their words. This one obviously chose his words carefully to avoid folks like you from stating that it was proof of anything. He's a respectable scientist.
You took his words and added your emotional non-scientific bias (that there's global warming happening), and read things into the report that neither NASA nor the scientist said.
I do get a kick out of your phrase, "statistical evidence" though -- you do know the old joke about liars, damn liars, and statisticians, right? Any statistician will agree that statistical analysis is not scientific evidence. It's just an observation of mathematical probability. Only one step of the scientific process.
You didn't quote the sources, so it's impossible for anyone to investigate your findings. I would have read them
In order for those statistical analyses to become "science", a theorem, and an experiment based off of the direction the statistics lead, and an observation of the outcome of that experiment is required. That is scientific evidence, by definition of the scientific process. Come back when you have that, if your agenda is global warming and you call yourself a scientist. You haven't even cited your sources, let alone done any science yet.
Show us the theory that has a testable experiment that proves global warming, and you'll be able to convince the world of your non-scientific, emotional bias.
A pretty photograph of some pretty clouds and a scientist's statement that it "suggests" something is not SCIENCE. It's an observation. Only one of the steps involved.
I have no agenda to smear science. I have an agenda to smear false/bad "scientists" or people who champion science who aren't following scientific principals. Opinions from "scientists" are of no more value than "pastors" of a religion, until the science work is done.
I believe in the scientific method as a wonderful tool for finding truth. There was only one step of the scientific method used by the scientist in the article. He observed something no one has studied before. He's got a lot of work ahead of him.
Science isn't about guessing. But lately the media finds it easier to jump to a conclusion on the emotional whims of a "scientist" they've quoted, even if that person isn't presenting their findings from science. They're just presenting their opinion, because it's entertainment and it sells advertising.
Agreement that they don't understand what's going on is not agreement that the science is conclusive.
I'm not arguing either side, I'm just saying that there's a lot of horseshit masquerading as "science" out there.
Even you are all riled up over a scientist posting NO science at all on this new topic and literally saying, "suggests" in his statement on a website. Not in a published paper, not backed by anything other than a hunch...
You're part of the problem. Demand that your scientists you worship (because yes, it's a religion) provide some real scientific theories that can really be applied on a planetary scale, and then test those theories with the scientific method.
Guess what -- they can't. So believing "scientists" is no more scientific in many cases than believing a "pastor" is.
With mounting evidence that illegal wiretapping of any network imaginable is commonplace, do you really think the line ends at Company mail, in the long term?
So this is yet another addition of technology where it's not needed to move liability from the people responsible to do the job right, to the machine, right?
Because things fail or UAV operators make mistakes, and then the UAV passes through airspace it was never intended to.
Sometimes all the way to the ground.
Report about Air Force Predator-B Crash in Arizona - This guy should have had his pilot's license suspended. Any real pilot pulls that kind of crap, they likely end up dead, but if they don't -- they aren't going to be flying for a while. I bet this kid was back flying his video game consoles the next day. You don't transfer controls to another pilot without them cross-checking them, and you don't transfer controls between CONSOLES without cross-checking them either. These are basic crew-coordination skills that aren't being followed here, not something difficult or "new"!
Mostly reckless and careless operation has already lost the Air Force some 25+ Global Hawks (out of 60+ in the fleet). Global Hawks aren't cheap, and they're not small either!
This idea that turning flight into a big video game doesn't have a psychological problem or two -- I'm not buying it. The kids grew up just hitting "Start" again if they crashed, but one of these things is going to come down somewhere very inappropriate and kill someone, sooner or later -- and that will be when they start training them to be real PILOTS.
UAV's are real airplanes and operators of them need to be fully licensed pilots, who understand the risks they're taking with not only the cheap UAV, but also with the lives of the others in the airspace around them, and on the ground below.
A certain amount less of the "gee this is a nifty RC plane" mentality and a little more of the "gee I am flying a 600 lb device that can easily kill someone if I am not paying attention to all of the factors of flying an aircraft" needs to happen in the giddy, slap-happy UAV industry.
Anything that wants to join the U.S. Airspace in serious numbers needs to be flown by folks who show RESPECT to the others in the airspace in their actions. Proper training, authorization, and awareness -- like we real pilots have always been required to have -- are necessary.
Just because something CAN fly autonomously, doesn't mean it's smart or safe to do so. Usually that choice is made because it's cheap. Not because it's the smartest solution to whatever problem the UAV-pushing company has come up with.
Just like computers, technology doesn't fix human problems. Needing UAV's to patrol cities by police forces means you have something inherently wrong in the cities that needs fixing, not a UAV crashing into someone's backyard every few months.
PSK31 is good, but the recent test article in QEX shows it's actually one of the WORST performing of the modern digital modes, when faced with HF fading and other types of noise.
It's old enough now that it's "popular" and the newer technology is on the climbing edge of that curve, but it'll get there quickly -- because it performs a heck of a lot better in real-world noise conditions.
Give it a few years. There's always something better on the horizon, and the lightly used modes that are just starting to get people's interest will be tomorrow's PSK31. And something else will be coming over the horizon...
Because in one scenario (licensed use and auction to get the spectrum) they make money, and in the other, they have to fund a very large organization to police the spectrum for signs that people aren't cooperating.
What I want to know is: Since the FCC is now a money-making organization to the tune of billions, when will I be seeing my tax refund?
Best advice I've seen in a long time on Slashdot. If someone's hell bent on taking you down and you didn't do anything, take them with you. They won't enjoy the ride and maybe they'll think twice before doing it again somewhere else in the future. If they have a future.
An excuse after the decision is made is how ALL firings happen. People then believe what they want to, after the fact.
As far as your 200 employees thing: It looks better in public than saying, "We found that ONE guy could circumvent all our security measures from inside the company." That type of bad press scares big companies.
The only way real certifications ever get started is by liability. I am all for it, but people will bitch and moan loudly if they're personally named in a lawsuit the next time they release shit software.
Sadly, that's the best thing that could happen to the industry.
Windows users always have the answers because no one else but the user-base does. And there's a lot of people with the same bugs.
Not only Linux geeks "attack" people and expect them to RTFM. People that show up in just about any experienced group of computer users asking simple questions and showing no sign of ever looking at the documentation (or in this case, the crash logs at least), deserve to get the crap flamed out of them. In person, preferably -- so they'll lose their "techie review" job at Ziff-Davis and get the hell out of this industry and leave it to professionals.
Some fanatics of Apple might behave like your description, but there's plenty of people out here who'd help the twit if his article weren't just flamebait, and he'd made even the slightest effort to read the logfiles. Most of us are just shaking our heads and hoping he finds a job somewhere where his talents of complaining without any understanding of the topic or any effort expended, while getting paid to do so, can be put to good use. Perhaps he'd make a good Congressman.
My comments will be modded Troll too, but there's no reason to help people who haven't made any effort to help themselves -- logs are basic OS technology that have been around for almost 30 years now. This idiot can't find them. He doesn't belong anywhere near a job reviewing Operating Systems. He's an idiot, and likely not willing to try to change that.
Oh, there are some systems that don't crash -- or at least default to fail-safe (not fail soft) modes. They're not something that gets sold to consumers, though -- unless you're an awfully rich consumer. And if you are, you probably don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they'll "light instantly" at 1/2 or less power, and then slowly work their way up to something where you can see the burglar standing in the back yard.
CFL's at 20F suck donkey balls.
Everyone with an ARM signed the fucking contract. Why are we bailing them out?
They took a risk (known as gambling in most circles) and lost.
SAP and Siebel have together, fucked up more companies than anyone ever originally thought possible. Most large-scale "process oriented" software usually does, sooner or later.
Why do you call something that does its job well "behind"?
Spoken like a PC salesman...
Rad-Hardened CPU's and what-not are time-tested, and just work. A lot of the reason that they are "behind" isn't because new rad-hardened components can't be made (in fact they have), it's because satellite engineers have higher discipline levels when it comes to code-reuse and risk-management of software.
Using an old chip (if it's fast enough and meets other requirements) with code that has not caused a failure of any multi-million dollar pieces of on-orbit hardware (and thus, lost if it dies) -- is good engineering.
More Terrestrial engineers could learn from those guys, really. Optimization and solid code are critical on board satellites. Crap bloatware that requires the latest and greatest bloatware engines (new CPUs) isn't welcome. Huzzah!
Or you just care too much.
You know, like those Hallmark movies. You care so much it hurts.
Touching, really. That Karma is that important to you.
I'm sure CmdrTaco is shedding a tear of joy right now.
I'm not out to smear science. I think science -- real science -- has led humans to a better understanding of our being and world.
Real science is actually "un-smearable" really, it's impossible for a logical being to argue things learned by real science. (We're not logical beings though, but that's a topic for another day. We're primarily emotional beings with just enough logic to hopefully adapt and learn quickly enough that we don't become extinct, each time our species is threatened with extinction.)
Your emotional diatribe that there was any science in TFA is wrong. You also attack some perceived agenda you think I have. It's not wrong to state that your theory hasn't been proven yet. There's only observations of gloabal warming, and there will never be a global-scale test that takes into account all variables, that will prove or disprove global warming as a concept, scientifically.
You claim that the article "supported" your belief that global warming is happening, when even the scientist quoted said there wasn't any scientific evidence that global warming caused the pretty clouds, and that it only "suggested" something completely misunderstood at this time.
Scientists are generally very careful with their words. This one obviously chose his words carefully to avoid folks like you from stating that it was proof of anything. He's a respectable scientist.
You took his words and added your emotional non-scientific bias (that there's global warming happening), and read things into the report that neither NASA nor the scientist said.
I do get a kick out of your phrase, "statistical evidence" though -- you do know the old joke about liars, damn liars, and statisticians, right? Any statistician will agree that statistical analysis is not scientific evidence. It's just an observation of mathematical probability. Only one step of the scientific process.
You didn't quote the sources, so it's impossible for anyone to investigate your findings. I would have read them
In order for those statistical analyses to become "science", a theorem, and an experiment based off of the direction the statistics lead, and an observation of the outcome of that experiment is required. That is scientific evidence, by definition of the scientific process. Come back when you have that, if your agenda is global warming and you call yourself a scientist. You haven't even cited your sources, let alone done any science yet.
Show us the theory that has a testable experiment that proves global warming, and you'll be able to convince the world of your non-scientific, emotional bias.
A pretty photograph of some pretty clouds and a scientist's statement that it "suggests" something is not SCIENCE. It's an observation. Only one of the steps involved.
I have no agenda to smear science. I have an agenda to smear false/bad "scientists" or people who champion science who aren't following scientific principals. Opinions from "scientists" are of no more value than "pastors" of a religion, until the science work is done.
I believe in the scientific method as a wonderful tool for finding truth. There was only one step of the scientific method used by the scientist in the article. He observed something no one has studied before. He's got a lot of work ahead of him.
Science isn't about guessing. But lately the media finds it easier to jump to a conclusion on the emotional whims of a "scientist" they've quoted, even if that person isn't presenting their findings from science. They're just presenting their opinion, because it's entertainment and it sells advertising.
Agreement that they don't understand what's going on is not agreement that the science is conclusive.
I'm not arguing either side, I'm just saying that there's a lot of horseshit masquerading as "science" out there.
Even you are all riled up over a scientist posting NO science at all on this new topic and literally saying, "suggests" in his statement on a website. Not in a published paper, not backed by anything other than a hunch...
You're part of the problem. Demand that your scientists you worship (because yes, it's a religion) provide some real scientific theories that can really be applied on a planetary scale, and then test those theories with the scientific method.
Guess what -- they can't. So believing "scientists" is no more scientific in many cases than believing a "pastor" is.
With mounting evidence that illegal wiretapping of any network imaginable is commonplace, do you really think the line ends at Company mail, in the long term?
Being that you're in the industry, what do you think of less radical changes like the CANDU reactor designs from Canada? Worth building here?
So this is yet another addition of technology where it's not needed to move liability from the people responsible to do the job right, to the machine, right?
You forgot their foray into larger electronics (REAL electronics, as in COMPONENTS!) retail in the 90's: TechAmerica.
Because things fail or UAV operators make mistakes, and then the UAV passes through airspace it was never intended to.
Sometimes all the way to the ground.
Report about Air Force Predator-B Crash in Arizona - This guy should have had his pilot's license suspended. Any real pilot pulls that kind of crap, they likely end up dead, but if they don't -- they aren't going to be flying for a while. I bet this kid was back flying his video game consoles the next day. You don't transfer controls to another pilot without them cross-checking them, and you don't transfer controls between CONSOLES without cross-checking them either. These are basic crew-coordination skills that aren't being followed here, not something difficult or "new"!
Mostly reckless and careless operation has already lost the Air Force some 25+ Global Hawks (out of 60+ in the fleet). Global Hawks aren't cheap, and they're not small either!
This idea that turning flight into a big video game doesn't have a psychological problem or two -- I'm not buying it. The kids grew up just hitting "Start" again if they crashed, but one of these things is going to come down somewhere very inappropriate and kill someone, sooner or later -- and that will be when they start training them to be real PILOTS.
UAV's are real airplanes and operators of them need to be fully licensed pilots, who understand the risks they're taking with not only the cheap UAV, but also with the lives of the others in the airspace around them, and on the ground below.
A certain amount less of the "gee this is a nifty RC plane" mentality and a little more of the "gee I am flying a 600 lb device that can easily kill someone if I am not paying attention to all of the factors of flying an aircraft" needs to happen in the giddy, slap-happy UAV industry.
Anything that wants to join the U.S. Airspace in serious numbers needs to be flown by folks who show RESPECT to the others in the airspace in their actions. Proper training, authorization, and awareness -- like we real pilots have always been required to have -- are necessary.
Just because something CAN fly autonomously, doesn't mean it's smart or safe to do so. Usually that choice is made because it's cheap. Not because it's the smartest solution to whatever problem the UAV-pushing company has come up with.
Just like computers, technology doesn't fix human problems. Needing UAV's to patrol cities by police forces means you have something inherently wrong in the cities that needs fixing, not a UAV crashing into someone's backyard every few months.
PSK31 is good, but the recent test article in QEX shows it's actually one of the WORST performing of the modern digital modes, when faced with HF fading and other types of noise.
It's old enough now that it's "popular" and the newer technology is on the climbing edge of that curve, but it'll get there quickly -- because it performs a heck of a lot better in real-world noise conditions.
Give it a few years. There's always something better on the horizon, and the lightly used modes that are just starting to get people's interest will be tomorrow's PSK31. And something else will be coming over the horizon...
Consider this: Some people are too immature to play video games, and their parents should know this.
Because in one scenario (licensed use and auction to get the spectrum) they make money, and in the other, they have to fund a very large organization to police the spectrum for signs that people aren't cooperating.
What I want to know is: Since the FCC is now a money-making organization to the tune of billions, when will I be seeing my tax refund?
Ha. Right.
Best advice I've seen in a long time on Slashdot. If someone's hell bent on taking you down and you didn't do anything, take them with you. They won't enjoy the ride and maybe they'll think twice before doing it again somewhere else in the future. If they have a future.
An excuse after the decision is made is how ALL firings happen. People then believe what they want to, after the fact.
As far as your 200 employees thing: It looks better in public than saying, "We found that ONE guy could circumvent all our security measures from inside the company." That type of bad press scares big companies.
You just know that some smarter geek than you is watching for patterns in the employee's stock purchases, and they'd catch you.
Same thing with the guy at the local car repair shop.
Smart people find good mechanics through referrals. Idiots get ripped off at Midas.
Nothing new there.
The only way real certifications ever get started is by liability. I am all for it, but people will bitch and moan loudly if they're personally named in a lawsuit the next time they release shit software.
Sadly, that's the best thing that could happen to the industry.
No no, that's...
"What does the Liberal Arts major say the day after graduation?"
"Do you want fries with that?"
Hell, yes. And you can require licenses and place liability on me for my work (including liability insurance) too. Just like a Doc.
I'll gladly jump through the hoops and watch the idiots leave the industry. And make the money.
The rest can get out and go play Wii or whatever they want. Some of us are pros and would love to see this industry grow up, finally.
If you're worried about a minor air leak and posting questions that hide your real agenda to Slashdot.
Windows users always have the answers because no one else but the user-base does. And there's a lot of people with the same bugs.
Not only Linux geeks "attack" people and expect them to RTFM. People that show up in just about any experienced group of computer users asking simple questions and showing no sign of ever looking at the documentation (or in this case, the crash logs at least), deserve to get the crap flamed out of them. In person, preferably -- so they'll lose their "techie review" job at Ziff-Davis and get the hell out of this industry and leave it to professionals.
Some fanatics of Apple might behave like your description, but there's plenty of people out here who'd help the twit if his article weren't just flamebait, and he'd made even the slightest effort to read the logfiles. Most of us are just shaking our heads and hoping he finds a job somewhere where his talents of complaining without any understanding of the topic or any effort expended, while getting paid to do so, can be put to good use. Perhaps he'd make a good Congressman.
My comments will be modded Troll too, but there's no reason to help people who haven't made any effort to help themselves -- logs are basic OS technology that have been around for almost 30 years now. This idiot can't find them. He doesn't belong anywhere near a job reviewing Operating Systems. He's an idiot, and likely not willing to try to change that.
Oh, there are some systems that don't crash -- or at least default to fail-safe (not fail soft) modes. They're not something that gets sold to consumers, though -- unless you're an awfully rich consumer. And if you are, you probably don't care.