Found a footnotes site for volume 1. His name was "Campion Bond." Also, the site indicates there's debate as to whether this is the ancestor of good old James.
When I checked Vol 1 of League from the library a few months ago, I came across a website with detailed footnotes on practically every panel. Once you peruse these, it becomes apparent that the comic has layers on layers of meaning and literary references.
Not sure if this was the actual site I saw, but here's what I found today:
I seem to recall that the league's contact at the Secret Service is actually James Bonds' ancestor (portly gent with a French sounding first name, I think). Gives another twist to the Connery casting choice.
Disclaimer: I checked out the first volume from my library a few months ago, so forgive me if I err as I don't have the copy handy. Correction posts welcome.
Predictably, most of the posts on this thread fall into two categories:
Pro - An engineer needs a system view in order to get their part of the system working.
Con - We need black box abstration because it is impossible for one human brain to understand the entirety of a non-trivial system.
The problem, of course, is that both sides are absolutely correct. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the key is to figure out where to draw the line. How much abstraction is "enough"? How much detail is "too much"? While there's a lot of proven guidelines and methodologies out there, the fact is that each project has to draw that line for themselves.
And that, IMHO, is where the art lies in engineering. You need a lot of expensive investigation and analysis by very experienced, talented people before they can get to the point where they can sit in a room and say "I have a hunch this is where we should draw that line." Even with all the science to back it up, it is still a very intangible thing. In the military, Von Clausewitz called it "the Fog of War." Everyone else calls it "Real Life." You can minimize uncertainty, but you can never eliminate it.
P.S. All this, of course, presumes that project management supports the chosen level of abstraction with policy (e.g. enforcing code reviews) and resources (having enough heads on board so the abstractions don't leave developers isolated - you need overlap). Without that support, it's like marching off to battle without ammunition, maps, or boots - no amount of strategy will save you.
who thinks of things in a black box mentality is usually going to be involved in [a] failed program
I like your post, but would prefer the phrasing "who limits their thinking to a black box mentality..."
Like many of the posts on this thread, you emphasize the importance of an overall system view. However, there is also a need to abstract out concepts in any complex system (as the rest of the posts on this thread point out).
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the key is to figure out where to draw the line. How much abstraction is "enough"? How much detail is "too much"? While there's a lot of proven guidelines and methodologies out there, the fact is that each project has to draw that line for themselves.
And that, dear friends, is where the art lies in engineering.
P.S. This, of course, presumes that project management supports the chosen level of abstraction with policy (e.g. enforcing code reviews) and resources (having enough heads on board so the abstrations don't leave developers isolated - you need overlap). Without that support, you're straight out doomed despite any sound engineering planning.
From the writeup for this thread, you wear many hats and do many things. Although we could interpret this as an inability to hold down a steady job, for the moment we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're still just trying to find your niche.
If that's the case, what do you want to be when you grow up?
[/tongue in cheek]
Apologies. In rereading my post, I see that it could come across in exactly the way you described it - "nationalistic bullshit." I was not my intention to wave the flag. I agree that to do so is to twist what happened today (which, regretfully, is exactly what we can expect many people across the political spectrum to do in the coming days and months...).
I would be honestly sad if the U.S. kills its manned space program over this. I admit that there's a little bit of national pride in there, and also some very personal selfishness (heck, isn't that one of the reasons why people support the space program? To support the dream, however unlikely, that it's possible for them to somehow go into space one day?). On the whole, I'd like to think my main reason for supporting spaceflight (and mourning its possible loss) is that it is, in the words of Ms. Stewart, "a good thing." I honestly believe that mankind as a whole benefits from it, not only in the technology it produces but also in the more intangible ways you cite.
In my post, I guess I was also trying to console myself: Even if the U.S. abandons space, others (China) will not. It's comforting that way. I had intended the comment about "handing Mars to China," as a lament about our own (U.S.) foolishness, not a commentary on other nations. I do see, however, that my phrasing can be interpreted as McCarthy era "If we don't the Reds will!" jingoism.
Again, apologies for the miscommunication.
[On a side note, I have to wonder something else. I'm trying to comfort myself with the notion that the Chinese government would proceed if the U.S. bails. This, of course, presupposes that they aren't motivated by politics. Or rather, that they have enough non-political motives to stick it out on a manned space program even after all rivals abandon the stage. Given my cynicism about mankind in general, I wonder if it's impossible to have a manned program unless there's a rival out there doing the exact same thing. If that is the case, then having the U.S. or China quit would bring an end to manned spaceflight in both countries]
I was posting some thoughts about exploration and risks on the earlier Columbia thread and it got me thinking about history will view today. The mainstream view (as espoused by the media) is that it will be seen as a historic tragedy. The contrarian view (from space buffs and I'm sure everyone inside the shuttle program) is that this will just ensure that the U.S. will continue manned space flight so that the sacrifice of those seven today was not in vain.
I can't help but wonder about a different perspective: A Chinese teraformer 150 years from now looking back at today as the day the U.S. gave Mars to China.
Yes, as an American it would make me sad to see my country cede its place in manned space travel (and I sincerely hope we don't). But to that colonist, today has no more signicance than the day the conquistadors arrived in the Americas. Shattering to those who suffered, but probably no more than a question on his high school history final, if even that.
Actually, that's exactly why I added the "European descent" qualifier. While Magellan being the last explorer would have been bad news for my Scottish forebears (sent here by a growing British Empire to counter the Spainards, French, and Portugese and incidentally wipe out any natives they missed) it would have been great for Montezuma's heirs or whatever native dynasty eventually managed to consolidate the Americas.
Heck, it depresses me to say this but the Chinese teraformers in 150 years might look back on today as the day America gave them Mars.
Data point: Of the 270 men (some sites on the 'net say 237) who set out with Magellan, only 15 made it home. Magellan didn't.
What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of us of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.
Data point: Of the 270 men (some sites on the 'net say 237) who set out with Magellan, only 15 made it home.
What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.
... circa 1988, I tried to convince the admin on the UNIX system (back when there were only two flavors) at school that we needed a where command to complement who, using the tty's of each user to figure out which lab they were connected from (or just flag 'external dialup'). I was willing to write an awk script to do it, but he was never willing to give me the mappings to all the ttys.
And, no, I wasn't, er, trying to pick up on female CS students. No, never that. It's just conincidence I wound up marrying one.
Good points, however I have to say that they all (well, two for three) get knocked out pretty easily:
we're interesting enough to be visited - We don't have to be interesting - they just have to be bored. Considering there are 24/7 cable channels dedicated to food, to cartoons, and to "look at how funny my cat Fluffy is when she falls into the toilet" in our own day and age, I think we can say there's a very low threshold for boredom in the average human animal.
we would know time travellers were here - There are no secrets. The biggest secrets of the 20th & 21st century (A-bomb construction details, the forumla for nerve gas, the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin's and Mao's campaigns against their own people, etc) remained secret for a relatively short time. A secret as juicy as time travel, especially when entrusted to tourists, would be old news by now. Besides, ask anyone who lives near Disneyland or another tourist attraction and they'll be able to pick tourists out of a crowd with something like 90% accuracy (the same, of course, can be said for Europeans picking out Americans pretty much anywhere). You might argue a few James Bond-esque temporal operatives could pull it off (and then with great risk, of course) but if you put any amateurs (tourists) or academics in your Wayback Machine and the cat's out of the bag.
time travel isn't 'forward only' - I conceded. A legitimate point. I interpret the term 'time travel' as implying reverse and forward travel, mostly because it makes intellectual discussions on the matter more interesting. 'Forward only' time travel is basically time diallation or cryrogenics (despite the mechanism used to get the result). Still interesting topics, but free of the conundrums that a 'backwards' setting on the Wayback Machine introduces.
Interesting point on future technology & time travel. Similar to an argument against time travel I heard once by an SF author (whose identity eludes me at the moment). He posited that if time travel ever got invented then we'd know already because we'd be hip deep in tourists.
On the French issue, good catch. See my earlier post.
Don't blame/. on this one. I used machine translation, knowing full well its weaknesses and knowing that someone would call me on it. No skin off my back. I'm just glad it was decipherable, if not correct. See my earlier post.
I'm currently working on an in flight entertainment system for corporate jets that will allow laptops and PDAs to join the LAN on the aircraft (so, say, they could do a presentation on the same screen normally used for movies). In honor of my new project, I posted this cartoon outside my cube.
I noticed that too when I first saw the site last month. I actually considered not submitting this to/. to better my chances in the contest, but since I'm a dottering 34 I decided "a bird in the hand..." and submitted it here.
As is, I still intend to dust off a few old stories and try to ship one of them. Heck, the worst they'll do is disqualify me.
(Hmmm... must fight urge to post again and make a lame joke about hexidecial... must resist... Aw, Hell. I'll do it!)
Truth is, I don't know the slightest bit of French (and my Spanish is miserable). 'Just used Google language tools. I had a hunch it would at least miss some nuances. Machine translation is incredible, but still has a long way to go.
Again, thanks for the correction. I'm relieved it was good enough to be deciphered.
You'd never get me to live in one of those... (OT)
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 2
"If builders built houses the way programmers built programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization" - Gerald Weinberg
I stand corrected. I do recall hearing about the Somalia issue in the news. I am glad there's been some reform, although the very secrecy of their replacement unit (while understandable) makes me wonder.
You sound like a reasonable poster, but I feel compelled to add the following for anyone who might have taken my post the wrong way: I had no intention of slighting the Canadian armed forces. Nor the Mexican Navy, for that matter. I had merely used the SAS as an example because of their reputation as a counter terrorist unit, not just as a commando unit.
And for those who are going to take my clarification the wrong way: I steadfastly refuse to get into a debate about the SAS'es historical role in Northern Ireland and the "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" semantics.
Some have noted that nothing beats face time with the family and any toy is going to collect dust. Well, I had an manager (alas, now departed from my employer) who used to send thank you notes and give dinner gift certificates (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc.) to a worker's spouse after a schedule crunch. Sort of a "Thank you for putting up with all the long hours." For singles, I think he just gave it straight to the worker, but a very nice touch for those with a brood at home.
Anyone else have suggestions for gifts in this mode?
Slashdot Mirror
Found a footnotes site for volume 1. His name was "Campion Bond." Also, the site indicates there's debate as to whether this is the ancestor of good old James.
Not sure if this was the actual site I saw, but here's what I found today:
I seem to recall that the league's contact at the Secret Service is actually James Bonds' ancestor (portly gent with a French sounding first name, I think). Gives another twist to the Connery casting choice.
Disclaimer: I checked out the first volume from my library a few months ago, so forgive me if I err as I don't have the copy handy. Correction posts welcome.
The problem, of course, is that both sides are absolutely correct. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the key is to figure out where to draw the line. How much abstraction is "enough"? How much detail is "too much"? While there's a lot of proven guidelines and methodologies out there, the fact is that each project has to draw that line for themselves.
And that, IMHO, is where the art lies in engineering. You need a lot of expensive investigation and analysis by very experienced, talented people before they can get to the point where they can sit in a room and say "I have a hunch this is where we should draw that line." Even with all the science to back it up, it is still a very intangible thing. In the military, Von Clausewitz called it "the Fog of War." Everyone else calls it "Real Life." You can minimize uncertainty, but you can never eliminate it.
P.S. All this, of course, presumes that project management supports the chosen level of abstraction with policy (e.g. enforcing code reviews) and resources (having enough heads on board so the abstractions don't leave developers isolated - you need overlap). Without that support, it's like marching off to battle without ammunition, maps, or boots - no amount of strategy will save you.
I like your post, but would prefer the phrasing "who limits their thinking to a black box mentality..."
Like many of the posts on this thread, you emphasize the importance of an overall system view. However, there is also a need to abstract out concepts in any complex system (as the rest of the posts on this thread point out).
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the key is to figure out where to draw the line. How much abstraction is "enough"? How much detail is "too much"? While there's a lot of proven guidelines and methodologies out there, the fact is that each project has to draw that line for themselves.
And that, dear friends, is where the art lies in engineering.
P.S. This, of course, presumes that project management supports the chosen level of abstraction with policy (e.g. enforcing code reviews) and resources (having enough heads on board so the abstrations don't leave developers isolated - you need overlap). Without that support, you're straight out doomed despite any sound engineering planning.
dididida di didadi dadidada didi dadi da di didadi di dididi da didi dadi dadadi
/.'s lameness filter)
(Change "di" to "." and "da" to "-" before decoding it here. Sorry - it was the only way to get this post past
If that's the case, what do you want to be when you grow up?
[/tongue in cheek]
No problem. Just keep calling them like you see them.
I would be honestly sad if the U.S. kills its manned space program over this. I admit that there's a little bit of national pride in there, and also some very personal selfishness (heck, isn't that one of the reasons why people support the space program? To support the dream, however unlikely, that it's possible for them to somehow go into space one day?). On the whole, I'd like to think my main reason for supporting spaceflight (and mourning its possible loss) is that it is, in the words of Ms. Stewart, "a good thing." I honestly believe that mankind as a whole benefits from it, not only in the technology it produces but also in the more intangible ways you cite.
In my post, I guess I was also trying to console myself: Even if the U.S. abandons space, others (China) will not. It's comforting that way. I had intended the comment about "handing Mars to China," as a lament about our own (U.S.) foolishness, not a commentary on other nations. I do see, however, that my phrasing can be interpreted as McCarthy era "If we don't the Reds will!" jingoism.
Again, apologies for the miscommunication.
[On a side note, I have to wonder something else. I'm trying to comfort myself with the notion that the Chinese government would proceed if the U.S. bails. This, of course, presupposes that they aren't motivated by politics. Or rather, that they have enough non-political motives to stick it out on a manned space program even after all rivals abandon the stage. Given my cynicism about mankind in general, I wonder if it's impossible to have a manned program unless there's a rival out there doing the exact same thing. If that is the case, then having the U.S. or China quit would bring an end to manned spaceflight in both countries]
I can't help but wonder about a different perspective: A Chinese teraformer 150 years from now looking back at today as the day the U.S. gave Mars to China.
Yes, as an American it would make me sad to see my country cede its place in manned space travel (and I sincerely hope we don't). But to that colonist, today has no more signicance than the day the conquistadors arrived in the Americas. Shattering to those who suffered, but probably no more than a question on his high school history final, if even that.
Heck, it depresses me to say this but the Chinese teraformers in 150 years might look back on today as the day America gave them Mars.
What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of us of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.
What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.
And, no, I wasn't, er, trying to pick up on female CS students. No, never that. It's just conincidence I wound up marrying one.
Honest.
- we're interesting enough to be visited - We don't have to be interesting - they just have to be bored. Considering there are 24/7 cable channels dedicated to food, to cartoons, and to "look at how funny my cat Fluffy is when she falls into the toilet" in our own day and age, I think we can say there's a very low threshold for boredom in the average human animal.
- we would know time travellers were here - There are no secrets. The biggest secrets of the 20th & 21st century (A-bomb construction details, the forumla for nerve gas, the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin's and Mao's campaigns against their own people, etc) remained secret for a relatively short time. A secret as juicy as time travel, especially when entrusted to tourists, would be old news by now. Besides, ask anyone who lives near Disneyland or another tourist attraction and they'll be able to pick tourists out of a crowd with something like 90% accuracy (the same, of course, can be said for Europeans picking out Americans pretty much anywhere). You might argue a few James Bond-esque temporal operatives could pull it off (and then with great risk, of course) but if you put any amateurs (tourists) or academics in your Wayback Machine and the cat's out of the bag.
- time travel isn't 'forward only' - I conceded. A legitimate point. I interpret the term 'time travel' as implying reverse and forward travel, mostly because it makes intellectual discussions on the matter more interesting. 'Forward only' time travel is basically time diallation or cryrogenics (despite the mechanism used to get the result). Still interesting topics, but free of the conundrums that a 'backwards' setting on the Wayback Machine introduces.
Again, very good points - thanks for commenting!On the French issue, good catch. See my earlier post.
Don't blame /. on this one. I used machine translation, knowing full well its weaknesses and knowing that someone would call me on it. No skin off my back. I'm just glad it was decipherable, if not correct. See my earlier post.
Somehow, management didn't find it funny.
0x15 to 0x30 would be 21 to 48 (dec). That lets a dottering geezer like me at 34 just slip in...
As is, I still intend to dust off a few old stories and try to ship one of them. Heck, the worst they'll do is disqualify me.
(Hmmm... must fight urge to post again and make a lame joke about hexidecial... must resist... Aw, Hell. I'll do it!)
Again, thanks for the correction. I'm relieved it was good enough to be deciphered.
"If builders built houses the way programmers built programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization" - Gerald Weinberg
You sound like a reasonable poster, but I feel compelled to add the following for anyone who might have taken my post the wrong way: I had no intention of slighting the Canadian armed forces. Nor the Mexican Navy, for that matter. I had merely used the SAS as an example because of their reputation as a counter terrorist unit, not just as a commando unit.
And for those who are going to take my clarification the wrong way: I steadfastly refuse to get into a debate about the SAS'es historical role in Northern Ireland and the "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" semantics.
Anyone else have suggestions for gifts in this mode?
Nice one. :)