One of the scariest/funniest things out of the Attorney General's mouth in response to the revelations back in December, was that the searches* "weren't unreasonable", and thus didn't need warrants.
I think it's you who is oversimplifying. Bottom up design isn't just like writing code with no formalized spec in mind. Of course you need to design a specification. Of course you come up with a set of requirements. A "pure" bottom up design philosophy is absurd (unless you are doing a-life experiments). You might as well have an infinite amount of monkeys randomly putting things together.
Point well taken. This goes to the argument that the problem isn't merely one of management, but if the culture as a whole, and it goes beyond NASA to the very rotten core of Washington, D.C. And until we can limit the corruption in Washington, management change at NASA is going to be nothing more than window dressing.
In summary, the persistent, inaccurate, navigational information that caused DART's premature retirement resulted from a combination of: 1) an initial, unacceptable, calculated difference between DART's estimated and measured position that triggered a software reset; 2) the introduction of an uncorrected, erroneous velocity measurement into the calculation scheme; 3) a navigational software design that was overly-sensitive to erroneous data; and 4) the use of incorrect gain control in the calculation scheme.
Give this a read. It doesn't say much about budget constraints, but it does point to a lack of testing on last minute changes due to the pressure to meet the launch date. Also, I think that reading between the lines a bit would indicate that there was a definite ept shortage on the team.
I would hope that most of the layers of management at NASA had taken calculus in college.
I think that the mistakes that typically get made (and not corrected) at NASA are due to upper management and political pressure, both internal and external. To people at that level, political realities seem to take precedence over physical reality.
NASA engineers aren't stupid. They're the best of the best.
Engineering failures which reach the light of day are also managment failures.
I think I know what you meant, but the way you wrote that could be interpreted as, "Engineering failures which reach the light of day are also managment failures in the cover up". A better way to put it would be, "Engineering failures which aren't discovered and corrected are also managment failures.
The reason that it is important to point out this difference is because we've already seen management cover up or sweep under the carpet engineering failures. We've also seen pressure to do so come from the politicians and the contractors (who have the politicians in their pockets).
Why even bother with engineers if that is your attitude? Why bother having projects at all? Let's just funnel money directly into defense and aerospace contractors' pockets, and make it easier for them to pay off the politicians. It'll be a whole lot more efficient, and, in cases like the shuttle, won't lead to any loss of life.
I've posted this link elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
One wonders if this failure is due to a design philosophy similar to the top down design that has doomed the shuttle.
From the Feynman report:
The usual way that such engines are designed (for military or civilian aircraft) may be called the component system, or bottom-up design. First it is necessary to thoroughly understand the properties and limitations of the materials to be used (for turbine blades, for example), and tests are begun in experimental rigs to determine those. With this knowledge larger component parts (such as bearings) are designed and tested individually. As deficiencies and design errors are noted they are corrected and verified with further testing. Since one tests only parts at a time these tests and modifications are not overly expensive. Finally one works up to the final design of the entire engine, to the necessary specifications. There is a good chance, by this time that the engine will generally succeed, or that any failures are easily isolated and analyzed because the failure modes, limitations of materials, etc., are so well understood. There is a very good chance that the modifications to the engine to get around the final difficulties are not very hard to make, for most of the serious problems have already been discovered and dealt with in the earlier, less expensive, stages of the process.
The Space Shuttle Main Engine was handled in a different manner, top down, we might say. The engine was designed and put together all at once with relatively little detailed preliminary study of the material and components. Then when troubles are found in the bearings, turbine blades, coolant pipes, etc., it is more expensive and difficult to discover the causes and make changes. For example, cracks have been found in the turbine blades of the high pressure oxygen turbopump. Are they caused by flaws in the material, the effect of the oxygen atmosphere on the properties of the material, the thermal stresses of startup or shutdown, the vibration and stresses of steady running, or mainly at some resonance at certain speeds, etc.? How long can we run from crack initiation to crack failure, and how does this depend on power level? Using the completed engine as a test bed to resolve such questions is extremely expensive. One does not wish to lose an entire engine in order to find out where and how failure occurs. Yet, an accurate knowledge of this information is essential to acquire a confidence in the engine reliability in use. Without detailed understanding, confidence can not be attained.
A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without a redesign of the entire engine.
As far as the Gray Goo threat goes, I don't think it's the immediate concern here.
Quite frankly, given the irresponsible extreme anti-regulation attitudes expressed by many here, I think I am in favor of a specific regulatory agency, such as we have for nuclear power.
There are too many technologists (or people who think they are) that are all too willing to play fast and loose, without an understanding, let alone a regard, for the consequences of their actions. Too many companies that would put short term profit ahead of the general public's welfare.
You are misunderstsanding the OP's use of the world "Alien". He didn't mean they came from outer space. Rather, he was suggesting that they represent "the other", that their culture is vastly different from ours. Contrast with the Alliance, where the culture is very similar to our Western culture.
Are you kidding me? Games like WoW and the various Lord of the Rings would be markedly improved if there was in-game advertising. Can you imagine if the Nazgul were driving Hummers? That would have been awethum! (I actually think Peter Jackson missed a lot of very lucrative product placement opportunities in LoTR that would have improved the trilogy. I'm sure that readers who are imaginative and agree can suggest where they would have placed products in LoTR.)
What if the actual mission is to rescue a pallet of Camel non-filters that were accidentally dropped behind enemy lines? (If you don't like cigarettes as an example, how about Cheat Commandos O's?)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you!
One of the scariest/funniest things out of the Attorney General's mouth in response to the revelations back in December, was that the searches* "weren't unreasonable", and thus didn't need warrants.
*phone taps
If I worked at a company that did something like this, I would start a coup d'état and happily leave if I lost.
Since you don't, why not drive a truck bomb over to K Street instead?
I think it's you who is oversimplifying. Bottom up design isn't just like writing code with no formalized spec in mind. Of course you need to design a specification. Of course you come up with a set of requirements. A "pure" bottom up design philosophy is absurd (unless you are doing a-life experiments). You might as well have an infinite amount of monkeys randomly putting things together.
Point well taken. This goes to the argument that the problem isn't merely one of management, but if the culture as a whole, and it goes beyond NASA to the very rotten core of Washington, D.C. And until we can limit the corruption in Washington, management change at NASA is going to be nothing more than window dressing.
Wait. There's editors on slashdot?!
Ulanoff clearly has an axe to grind
I'm certain that that is a job requirement at PC Magazine, right after "Lack of Journalism Skills and Aptitude".
Yeah, we can't have journalists wasting any of their time doing things like investigating facts.
Lance Ulanoff writes for PC Magazine, and thus, logically, is not a journalist.
Give this a read. It doesn't say much about budget constraints, but it does point to a lack of testing on last minute changes due to the pressure to meet the launch date. Also, I think that reading between the lines a bit would indicate that there was a definite ept shortage on the team.
Good point! It's not like this is rocket science.
Er, wait . . .
Unfortunately, the faulty design was due to the screw ups of a private contractor, so there goes your "private sector" argument.
I would hope that most of the layers of management at NASA had taken calculus in college.
I think that the mistakes that typically get made (and not corrected) at NASA are due to upper management and political pressure, both internal and external. To people at that level, political realities seem to take precedence over physical reality.
NASA engineers aren't stupid. They're the best of the best.
Engineering failures which reach the light of day are also managment failures.
I think I know what you meant, but the way you wrote that could be interpreted as, "Engineering failures which reach the light of day are also managment failures in the cover up". A better way to put it would be, "Engineering failures which aren't discovered and corrected are also managment failures.
The reason that it is important to point out this difference is because we've already seen management cover up or sweep under the carpet engineering failures. We've also seen pressure to do so come from the politicians and the contractors (who have the politicians in their pockets).
Bullshit!
Why even bother with engineers if that is your attitude? Why bother having projects at all? Let's just funnel money directly into defense and aerospace contractors' pockets, and make it easier for them to pay off the politicians. It'll be a whole lot more efficient, and, in cases like the shuttle, won't lead to any loss of life.
I've posted this link elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
And WTF is a "newspaper deal"?
From the Feynman report:
As far as the Gray Goo threat goes, I don't think it's the immediate concern here.
Quite frankly, given the irresponsible extreme anti-regulation attitudes expressed by many here, I think I am in favor of a specific regulatory agency, such as we have for nuclear power.
There are too many technologists (or people who think they are) that are all too willing to play fast and loose, without an understanding, let alone a regard, for the consequences of their actions. Too many companies that would put short term profit ahead of the general public's welfare.
Regulation of nanotechnology is a no-brainer.
Otherwise we may have another DDT or thalidomide on our hands.
Or on our flippers.
maybe you should have used the /ic tag?
You are misunderstsanding the OP's use of the world "Alien". He didn't mean they came from outer space. Rather, he was suggesting that they represent "the other", that their culture is vastly different from ours. Contrast with the Alliance, where the culture is very similar to our Western culture.
Are you kidding me? Games like WoW and the various Lord of the Rings would be markedly improved if there was in-game advertising. Can you imagine if the Nazgul were driving Hummers? That would have been awethum! (I actually think Peter Jackson missed a lot of very lucrative product placement opportunities in LoTR that would have improved the trilogy. I'm sure that readers who are imaginative and agree can suggest where they would have placed products in LoTR.)
I hope they still make a great movie despite their choices, and that this wont just be a quick cash-in.
If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.
Seriously, how can this be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the game?
Happy for me that this technology is a piece of crap I can live without... and I'm a video game programmer specialized in Input.
What does your expertise in input have to do with output?
The _only_ exception I would make would be a completely free MMORPG that was subsidized with some sort of innovative advertising
Wouldn't work. If you made it free, the target audience would stay home, play until they starved to death, and never buy anything.
Seriously, though, how do you get past the Final Boss Marketer without buying something?
What if the actual mission is to rescue a pallet of Camel non-filters that were accidentally dropped behind enemy lines? (If you don't like cigarettes as an example, how about Cheat Commandos O's?)