I could usually have a pretty good prototype working with a couple of major revisions made before the "planning types" could even get out a initial prototype.
But, over the years I noticed that I (and those like me) tended to get "officially finished" in about the same amount of time that the annoying guys who planned everything out to the Nth degree got finished.
Was my product any better than their's? No not really.
...About the only thing that I can say is that my internal company clients usually appreciated that they had something to work with earlier rather than later.
They knew it was a rough version, but hey, if you need it now, you need it now.
Ah. The Microsoft model. Release early, release often, release buggy. Slap something together fast, and then debug and patch like crazy.
On the other hand, you're willing to acknowledge that the intermediate versions aren't a final product. Indeed, depending on the circumstances it's usually good to get regular feedback from the customer, and the best way is often to use a mockup. Still, a lot of people have trouble finding all of the hidden bugs that creep in when they start with quick'n'dirty and try to turn it into a production system....
Personally, I consider viruses, worms and trojans to all fall into the same genus. The differences between the three aren't too important and blurry anyways. They are all hostile code that can affect any system.
Hrm. That sounds a little like saying that it's not important for the lay public to know the differences between real (biological) viruses and bacteria--they're both hostile organisms that make us sick, right?
All well and good until you have people with rhinoviruses going to the doctor and demanding antibiotics.
Sure, simplify the details--most people don't need to know every little thing about the mechanisms by which hostile code operates. Still, it is very important for even novice computer users to understand the various ways that their otherwise very vulnerable Windows boxes can be compromised.
...what do they have to help the laptop that reaches its terminal velocity? It's not accelerating, so it'll unlock the drive, and then SLAM! your data's gone! Skydiving with a satellite connection may not be popular at IBM, but hey, think of the rest of us, you insensitive clod!
If, when skydiving, you're still travelling at a high terminal velocity when you hit the ground, then your laptop hard drive's condition should be the least of your worries.
What do you want, a hard drive that deploys its own 'chute?
however, if microsoft gets in the bios and disables the shift key... "they don't need a shift key" you can bluescreen on boot and probably get around it by pressing the windows key.
See? I told you--that's not a bug; it's a feature.
I propose an opensource web based search engine... No more weirdness, no more screwups, no more censorship!
No more speed, no more efficiency, no more reliability...
There's a reason why Google is the preeminent search engine today--they have an excellent product. Sure, the open source community could pour millions of hours into developing a competing engine (Go for it!) and millions of dollars to cover the hosting and bandwidth (those server farms ain't cheap). Do you really think that there would be fewer problems with weirdness and screwups if all the denizens of/. joined forces to build a search engine out of rubber bands and chewing gum?
Another poster has already noted that you're observing a rough density map of the big name schools.
There's probably also a bias in the selection of the nominating committees. Probably those individuals live predominantly in the major cities identified with cultural and scientific advancement. Of course, since the committee members are a secret, we'll never know for sure...
Over a decade of using a word processor has led to me thinking in an "inside out" fashion about writing - I write say the main sentence of a paragraph, then add more before and after to fill in the rest of the point I'm trying to make.
This is how I write papers, whether on paper or with a computer. Start with point form notes, juggle them with little arrows into a coherent order.
Write a little more to flesh it out. Draft double-spaced so you can insert text.
Finally, after the draft is finished, use it to compose a final copy. (Lather, rinse, repeat...)
From the other posts here, I gather that BATF categorizes these things as "destructive devices" and therefore a license is required to possess or manufacture them.
This might also be a general product safety issue. You're not allowed to use homemade propane cylinders, either--they have to have them inspected and tested. It's not because propane cylinders are inherently dangerous when used correctly, or even because you're expected to do something stupid with them. It's because if you screw up the manufacturing then they are extremely dangerous.
Similarly, a homemade cannon may be a source of amusement, you may have no intention of abusing it, and properly manufactured it can be quite safe. Nevertheless, the government may choose to regulate such devices just because if not manufactured and used very carefully, a cannon could conceivably be converted rapidly and efficiently into a whole pile of deadly shrapnel.
The government requires a lot of potentially dangerous products (automobiles, firearms, pharmaceuticals) to be be tested before they reach the hands of the public. You have to have a licence to use an automobile; you have to have formal training to dispense drugs. Why wouldn't there be paperwork for a cannon, too? It makes sense.
My feeling is that it's largely because the US is such a large country with many diverse ethnic groups and geographic areas.
You mean like Canada?
We haven't gone over to full-blown socialism, but we have taken a number of valuable steps in that direction. For example, we have our (not perfect, but really quite good) free health care--which people are unafraid to call 'socialized medicine'. In general, Canada takes a more liberal stance on issues than the United States while having an equally diverse (geographically and ethnically) population.
Regrettably I must leave for work, but an amusing take on your Commie neighbours to the North can be found here.
And I would submit that even if you do believe an activist government is a good way to solve the ills of society, there are much more pressing problems than Coke cans in TV shows.
How about drugs in TV shows. Not heroin and coke, but medications (either over-the-counter or prescription.) When presented in commercials, there are rules regarding what information must be presented (side effects, contraindications, etc.) and what may be claimed (efficacy).
I've mentioned this in another post, but what happens if the cast of ER start to recommend specific brand names of prescription drugs, rather then equivalent generics? In general, we accept that it is important for the public to recognize when a drug is being marketed, and we also accept that the public should receive all of the pertinent information about said product. This could be a life-threatening backdoor. (Doctors--real ER physicians--already have enough trouble with people who 'borrow' some of granny's/uncle's/brother's medications because they share superficially similar symptoms. Do we want people to do this because they saw how effective a drug was on their favourite television show?)
I'm not sure I can see the connection between product placements and drugs.
Drugs can be a product placement. Further, they can do so without all of the requirements placed on conventional drug advertising (disclosure of side effects, contraindications, etc.)
If someone is watching ER, Noah Wylie's scriptwriters can choose whether or not he sends a patient home with instructions to take 'ibuprofen' (generic) or 'Advil' (brand name). I'd probably shrug this one off, since it's over-the-counter stuff--but has anyone else noticed the amount of prescription drug advertising in the United States? I can see quite a market for product placements in television shows where all the disclosures aren't required.
Such advertising might be even more popular in some other countries (I know this is outside the FTC's purview) where drug advertising is more restricted. (Canada, for instance, permits advertisers to show either the drug name or the symptoms it treats--but not both. You can build awareness of your brand name, or awareness of a disease, but you can't get both.)
We rarely need to lift huge masses, unless we're bound for the Moon.
Yes, it's a good thing we're not wasting twenty or so shuttle launches to put together a space station. I'm also really glad that we don't have to put said space station in a ridiculously low orbit because we lack heavy lift capacity.
It's nice that there's no interest in building space elevators out of thousands of tons of carbon. We're lucky that there's no interest in space hotels, or Mars missions.
Yessiree. Heavy lift capacity would just be such a waste.
This gets more amusing each day. It's like watching a bratty child try to argue against something they have little knowledge about.
Actually, the really scary part is that your little fictional dialogue sounds exactly like a political debate I watched on television last night. A provincial election is coming up in Ontario, and the three would-be Premiers (loosely equivalent to state governors in the United States) argued on about the same level. Sigh.
Save us all the time and dozens of inevitable Slashdot stories (+ dupes) and dump the thing.
Indeed...has anybody else noticed that--miracle of miracles!--there is isn't a single SCO story on the front page right now? Verisign has actually bumped Darl McBride. For that, perhaps we should offer them a (very slow, very weak) handclap.
The problem with a laser is that it is inherently unidirectional. You get great signal propagation at low power, but you have to aim it really carefully to get anything at all.
In the rain, infrared lasers would be in a bit of trouble--raindrops will readily scatter infrared light (coherent and otherwise). Most IR wavelengths are also easily absorbed by water--one of the reasons why infrared telescopes have to be located in space.
Not sure if it would harm the screen of cellphone (a simple UV protective transparent sticker would help) but all other surfaces would be clensed without problems. No?
Unless specifically designed with UV irradiation in mind, the plastic of the phone would probably become brittle.
Also, UV is extremely vulnerable to nook-and-cranny failures. Any part of the phone that is potentially shaded--around buttons, holes in the speaker or microphone grille--can protect bacteria from UV exposure. Actually, just a little bit of dirt or dust can provide sufficient shade to permit bacteria to survive. UV works quite well on airborne pathogens, but surfaces must be carefully designed with UV sterilization in mind.
Maybe some internal parts would need to be shielded to withstand it, but the external surface could be sterilized that way.
The problem with this is that any radiation (UV, X-ray, hard gammas) that you might choose to use to sterilize the telephone will also likely degrade the plastic from which it is constructed.
Depending on the particular composition of the telephone, radiation may cause either brittleness or softening of the plastic case and buttons. The clear display window will probably yellow or cloud, before failing completely. I would anticipate that there is potential for damage to the LCD itself, but that's not one of my areas of expertise.
In addition, UV has virtually zero penetrating power, so bacteria can hide inside cracks and openings in the phone, or even behind little bits of dirt or grime.
Watching the skies for asteroids is comparatively inexpensive. The distances that telescopes are required to resolve in order to detect a threatening asteroid within sufficient lead time are far shorter than those routinely resolved by Hubble or Chandra, and lower-power telescopes = lower cost. It's the research into asteroid diversion techniques that really must be beefed up.
It's not an either-or question. The further away an asteroid can be detected, the less effort would be required to divert it. Hypothetically speaking, if one could accurately predict collisions a thousand years in advance, only very small tweaks to trajectory would be necessary. Build a 'paint bomb' that would make one face of the asteroid highly reflective, so that its momentum is changed by sunlight bouncing off. Contrariwise, asteroids observed only a month in advance by some guy with binoculars will call for none other than...ahem...Bruce Willis.
It's really not that hard. You plot on a logarithmic scale the probability of collision (x-axis) and the estimated kinetic energy of the object (y-axis). From this figure, read off the Torino scale value.
I don't think it misrepresents anything. Each value is associated with both a specific kinetic energy and a specific probability. The Torino value not just the result of multiplying the two numbers (which would introduce the orthogonal vectors issue you mentioned) but rather a unique area on the plane defined by those two 'vectors'.
He actually has a workable, scalable, power-generating reactor.
No, he doesn't. From the linked article, in the Objectives section.
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics' objective is to achieve break-even (100% net efficiency) with focus fusion (as much energy out as fed into the plasma).
[...]
These experiments, which will take about a year once the equipment is ready, are aimed at achieving a number of goals essential to moving toward a focus fusion reactor.
It's a pretty set of sketches and projections (right down to very detailed guesstimates at the income and return on investment for a hypothetical company who might want to fund this project) but it is by no means a working generator. He hasn't even achieved break-even yet. Don't hold your breath.
Slashdot Mirror
But, over the years I noticed that I (and those like me) tended to get "officially finished" in about the same amount of time that the annoying guys who planned everything out to the Nth degree got finished.
Was my product any better than their's? No not really.
They knew it was a rough version, but hey, if you need it now, you need it now.
Ah. The Microsoft model. Release early, release often, release buggy. Slap something together fast, and then debug and patch like crazy.
On the other hand, you're willing to acknowledge that the intermediate versions aren't a final product. Indeed, depending on the circumstances it's usually good to get regular feedback from the customer, and the best way is often to use a mockup. Still, a lot of people have trouble finding all of the hidden bugs that creep in when they start with quick'n'dirty and try to turn it into a production system....
"CANADA!"
Hrm. That sounds a little like saying that it's not important for the lay public to know the differences between real (biological) viruses and bacteria--they're both hostile organisms that make us sick, right?
All well and good until you have people with rhinoviruses going to the doctor and demanding antibiotics.
Sure, simplify the details--most people don't need to know every little thing about the mechanisms by which hostile code operates. Still, it is very important for even novice computer users to understand the various ways that their otherwise very vulnerable Windows boxes can be compromised.
If, when skydiving, you're still travelling at a high terminal velocity when you hit the ground, then your laptop hard drive's condition should be the least of your worries.
What do you want, a hard drive that deploys its own 'chute?
See? I told you--that's not a bug; it's a feature.
No more speed, no more efficiency, no more reliability...
There's a reason why Google is the preeminent search engine today--they have an excellent product. Sure, the open source community could pour millions of hours into developing a competing engine (Go for it!) and millions of dollars to cover the hosting and bandwidth (those server farms ain't cheap). Do you really think that there would be fewer problems with weirdness and screwups if all the denizens of /. joined forces to build a search engine out of rubber bands and chewing gum?
Excellent! I always thought the Science Guy would make a great Doctor.
There's probably also a bias in the selection of the nominating committees. Probably those individuals live predominantly in the major cities identified with cultural and scientific advancement. Of course, since the committee members are a secret, we'll never know for sure...
This is how I write papers, whether on paper or with a computer. Start with point form notes, juggle them with little arrows into a coherent order.
Write a little more to flesh it out. Draft double-spaced so you can insert text.
Finally, after the draft is finished, use it to compose a final copy. (Lather, rinse, repeat...)
This might also be a general product safety issue. You're not allowed to use homemade propane cylinders, either--they have to have them inspected and tested. It's not because propane cylinders are inherently dangerous when used correctly, or even because you're expected to do something stupid with them. It's because if you screw up the manufacturing then they are extremely dangerous.
Similarly, a homemade cannon may be a source of amusement, you may have no intention of abusing it, and properly manufactured it can be quite safe. Nevertheless, the government may choose to regulate such devices just because if not manufactured and used very carefully, a cannon could conceivably be converted rapidly and efficiently into a whole pile of deadly shrapnel.
The government requires a lot of potentially dangerous products (automobiles, firearms, pharmaceuticals) to be be tested before they reach the hands of the public. You have to have a licence to use an automobile; you have to have formal training to dispense drugs. Why wouldn't there be paperwork for a cannon, too? It makes sense.
You mean like Canada?
We haven't gone over to full-blown socialism, but we have taken a number of valuable steps in that direction. For example, we have our (not perfect, but really quite good) free health care--which people are unafraid to call 'socialized medicine'. In general, Canada takes a more liberal stance on issues than the United States while having an equally diverse (geographically and ethnically) population.
Regrettably I must leave for work, but an amusing take on your Commie neighbours to the North can be found here.
How about drugs in TV shows. Not heroin and coke, but medications (either over-the-counter or prescription.) When presented in commercials, there are rules regarding what information must be presented (side effects, contraindications, etc.) and what may be claimed (efficacy).
I've mentioned this in another post, but what happens if the cast of ER start to recommend specific brand names of prescription drugs, rather then equivalent generics? In general, we accept that it is important for the public to recognize when a drug is being marketed, and we also accept that the public should receive all of the pertinent information about said product. This could be a life-threatening backdoor. (Doctors--real ER physicians--already have enough trouble with people who 'borrow' some of granny's/uncle's/brother's medications because they share superficially similar symptoms. Do we want people to do this because they saw how effective a drug was on their favourite television show?)
Drugs can be a product placement. Further, they can do so without all of the requirements placed on conventional drug advertising (disclosure of side effects, contraindications, etc.)
If someone is watching ER, Noah Wylie's scriptwriters can choose whether or not he sends a patient home with instructions to take 'ibuprofen' (generic) or 'Advil' (brand name). I'd probably shrug this one off, since it's over-the-counter stuff--but has anyone else noticed the amount of prescription drug advertising in the United States? I can see quite a market for product placements in television shows where all the disclosures aren't required.
Such advertising might be even more popular in some other countries (I know this is outside the FTC's purview) where drug advertising is more restricted. (Canada, for instance, permits advertisers to show either the drug name or the symptoms it treats--but not both. You can build awareness of your brand name, or awareness of a disease, but you can't get both.)
Yes, it's a good thing we're not wasting twenty or so shuttle launches to put together a space station. I'm also really glad that we don't have to put said space station in a ridiculously low orbit because we lack heavy lift capacity.
It's nice that there's no interest in building space elevators out of thousands of tons of carbon. We're lucky that there's no interest in space hotels, or Mars missions.
Yessiree. Heavy lift capacity would just be such a waste.
Oh. Wait.
Actually, of those five, only Bush has inherited the Capitol.
Actually, the really scary part is that your little fictional dialogue sounds exactly like a political debate I watched on television last night. A provincial election is coming up in Ontario, and the three would-be Premiers (loosely equivalent to state governors in the United States) argued on about the same level. Sigh.
In my preferred flyspeck font, the letter I enclosed in single quotes looks exactly like a capital T...hilarity ensues...
Indeed...has anybody else noticed that--miracle of miracles!--there is isn't a single SCO story on the front page right now? Verisign has actually bumped Darl McBride. For that, perhaps we should offer them a (very slow, very weak) handclap.
Ah yes. The powerful technique of governing by aphorism.
The problem with a laser is that it is inherently unidirectional. You get great signal propagation at low power, but you have to aim it really carefully to get anything at all.
In the rain, infrared lasers would be in a bit of trouble--raindrops will readily scatter infrared light (coherent and otherwise). Most IR wavelengths are also easily absorbed by water--one of the reasons why infrared telescopes have to be located in space.
Unless specifically designed with UV irradiation in mind, the plastic of the phone would probably become brittle.
Also, UV is extremely vulnerable to nook-and-cranny failures. Any part of the phone that is potentially shaded--around buttons, holes in the speaker or microphone grille--can protect bacteria from UV exposure. Actually, just a little bit of dirt or dust can provide sufficient shade to permit bacteria to survive. UV works quite well on airborne pathogens, but surfaces must be carefully designed with UV sterilization in mind.
The problem with this is that any radiation (UV, X-ray, hard gammas) that you might choose to use to sterilize the telephone will also likely degrade the plastic from which it is constructed.
Depending on the particular composition of the telephone, radiation may cause either brittleness or softening of the plastic case and buttons. The clear display window will probably yellow or cloud, before failing completely. I would anticipate that there is potential for damage to the LCD itself, but that's not one of my areas of expertise.
In addition, UV has virtually zero penetrating power, so bacteria can hide inside cracks and openings in the phone, or even behind little bits of dirt or grime.
It's not an either-or question. The further away an asteroid can be detected, the less effort would be required to divert it. Hypothetically speaking, if one could accurately predict collisions a thousand years in advance, only very small tweaks to trajectory would be necessary. Build a 'paint bomb' that would make one face of the asteroid highly reflective, so that its momentum is changed by sunlight bouncing off. Contrariwise, asteroids observed only a month in advance by some guy with binoculars will call for none other than...ahem...Bruce Willis.
I don't think it misrepresents anything. Each value is associated with both a specific kinetic energy and a specific probability. The Torino value not just the result of multiplying the two numbers (which would introduce the orthogonal vectors issue you mentioned) but rather a unique area on the plane defined by those two 'vectors'.
No, he doesn't. From the linked article, in the Objectives section.
It's a pretty set of sketches and projections (right down to very detailed guesstimates at the income and return on investment for a hypothetical company who might want to fund this project) but it is by no means a working generator. He hasn't even achieved break-even yet. Don't hold your breath.