I moved to Europe, traveled the world for almost 10 years, and then went back to school
How the hell do you afford to do that? I can barely afford to live in a shithole I'm from with a full-time job, let alone the costs of travelling. We don't all have the luxuries you obviously had.
I bought an ultra-cheap ticket, and got to Frankfurt with less than $55 in my pocket. I stayed in the youth hostel, and got myself a shit job in a garage the next day. I went hungry for three days- the last three before my first pay day. I later took a sick day, went to the airport on a bus, and walked to 10 different freight operations looking for work. I got three offers, and took one with an airline. I later moved to another city, and got another airline job. That one got me free flying on a standby basis. That's how I saw Europe and the world. On the cheap: hand to mouth.
---------
You want success? Find out what you love, do it well, and wholeheartedly
What if you don't love anything? What if doing the thing you love doesn't pay, or you can only do it in some shitty low-paid job which barely pays enough to live in a one-room basement with no elecricity? On average without a degree you're going to earn less money. That's a fact.
yes, on average... but nobody actually is "on average" (who has 2.3 children?) and just reading slashdot leaves you well out of the "on average" stuff, doesn't it?
So I urge you: use your individuality, and your intelligence. Your anger makes me think that you have some social concience about other people who are less fortunate. Nothing wrong with you doing what I do: I work to improve the lot of the poor, especially the poor in India and the far east, where I've traveled.
---------
Jobs and I are motivated by love of what we do.
Consultancy? I can't think of anything more empty and unlikeable and useless to society.
Then don't be a consultant! My customers were delighted to have my help, and the staff I worked with are good freinds to this day.
And what's the alternative? How many people can you think of who got wealthy doing something that they hate? And how many people are despeartely unhappy in their lives in spite of doing what they love?
I took the advice- given by a Harvard prof: tim leary.
I moved to Europe, traveled the world for almost 10 years, and then went back to school. Got a 4.0 for several years, taking tough courses about subjects that I really wanted to understand. Then bailed out again and got a job in computing- and have done that ever since.
A few years ago I got my own consulting gig at $120 per hour, and made 1/4 mil per year for the first time in my life.
I think Jobs and I agree on these points: success comes to those who are smart and motivated. Jobs and I are motivated by love of what we do. We knew enough to find out what we love, and had the courage to follow our hearts: all the way to success and good money. Notice: those are not the same. The money came because I was lucky enough to enjoy a field that is in demand. Success also comes to self-fulfilled but poor artists.
You want money? Go to college, get degrees, get well paid work.
You want success? Find out what you love, do it well, and wholeheartedly
25 years ago I wrote a security system for a mini, and offered the folks that worked with me a similar deal. If they could find a bug, or a security loophole, then I would buy them lunch. I figured it was a simple way to test the integrity of the design, documentation, and implementation of this critical system.
In a similar vein, the military has "red teams" that are hired to challenge defenses.
I'd like to see Microsoft provide "bug bounties". It seems to me that it would be a remarkably cost effective way to discover problems.
Are you really trying to say that to mount a rescue mission, nasa first has to go through a rigerous development and test cycle? Perhaps you've heard of Apollo 13. The whole reason that people are impressed by that disaster recovery is that NASA cut through the red tape. Again, in the 1% chance that a Hubble rescue mission would have a TPS problem, there are relatively simple ways to solve the problem.
NASA has advertised loudly that there is a common docking system. Now you tell us that, well, yes, uhhh, docking, not berthing, and uhh, oh yes we have to design and test some new stuff, and mmmm... theres a couple of other problems....
My point is that astronauts could even do a spacewalk transfer between the Shuttle and Soyuz. If the 1% chance comes up as a emergency, the shuttle can use the OMS to drop it's orbit. Pressure suits sufficient for a short transfer are not "Rocket Science".
NASA is beset by problems, many of them are internal cultural problems. One example is this one, and you, my friend exemplify it beautifully. Rather than looking for and adopting quick, cheap and simple fixes to problems, they insist on goldplating everything they do.
They are also playing politics of the worst kind by threatening to dump Hubble into the sea. They are alienating those of us who agree with their overarching mission, and drying up the political support that their base can give.
wrong on the docking. there is a common docking collar now used on all manned vehicles, russian or american.
wrong on the orbit question as well. The Soyuz can easily reach the Hubble orbit, even when loaded with cosmonauts, but it will be empty, so it takes even less energy....
NASA wants to paint Congress into a corner. By dragging it's feet, and possibly abandoning Hubble, they hope to keep interest at a high level for the new telescope.
Bear in mind that for 25 years Congress has been underfunding and stretching out every mission in the NASA budget. NASA can expect to have a ten year delay in the new telescope program, based on the funding record of the Shuttle, the International Space Station, various planetary missions, and the four space based observatories.
I wish I could suggest a solution to the multi-year funding quandry, but I'm not that smart!
I think that what we are seeing is an intricate political dance...
In the 1 in 100 chance (based on experience) that the Hubble service mission launch compromises the Shuttle reentry capability, then the Shuttle crew can be rescued. The fully automated Russian Soyuz has an inate capacity to bring back three in each capsule.
So a crew rescue might take two Soyuz missions, but they are very cheap and reliable. As a standby crew rescue option, Soyuz is a no-brainer.
Right now NASA has
firm plans
for eight missions to deliver space station structure. The ISS needs those truss sections and solar cell arrays to become fully functional. Those cargos are too big to fit under the payload shrouds of the other available launchers. I guess that a few modules may be lofted for ISS partners, but after that the shuttle has no mission.
The A350 2 engine (competition for the 7E7) bird is an A330 with new wings, and new engines. This will be relatively cheap to develop (2-4 Billion). Unfortunately, the fusalage will be aluminum, and will have a low cabin pressure and humidity. Passengers will be subjected to the usual 8,000 foot cabin altitude at 10% relative humidity (same as A380, 747, 737, 777, etc).
The 7E7 is the only all-composite passenger aircraft. The composite fusalage construction permits higher cabin pressures and humidity. This results in far better passenger comfort, especially on long flights. I addition, very large windows are possible.
A twin gets up to cruise altitude in about 1/2 to 1/3 of the time of a "quad".
This is because of "excess thrust".
This results in better passenger travel experience for the twins, like the long range 777 and 7E7.
A 777 or 7E7 fying out of Singapore for London, for example, will take 30 minutes to get to cruise, 20 minutes to "seatbelt light out". The 747, A340, A380 take 3x as long.
EXCESS THRUST:
To operate commercially, a plane has to be able to take off and fly with one engine out.
So really, from an engineering standpoint, you can think of a 2 engine bird as a 1 engine flying machine, with an extra engine that has enough power to fly the whole airplane. In contrast we think of a 4 engine bird as a 3 engine bird, with an extra engine which is big enough to replace 1/3 of the required "flying power", in case 1 of the 3 goes out.
So a 747 has about 50,000 lb excess thrust, and a 777 has 100,000. you can do the same calculation for the A330 and A340, which share the same structure, except for wings and engines.
Most of the invested money was "borrowed" from the governments of France, Gremany UK, and Spain. The terms of the "loans" specify that if the market projections were wrong, then the "loan" doesn't have to be paid back.
If the loan is paid back, it is at an extremely low interest rate, far below the prevailing commercial rates. Why can't you and I get a loan like that?
Maybe you and I didn't come up with yet another aerospace prestige project, like the Concorde, or the Arianne rocket.
The article gets right into bandwidth problems, and mentions the lack of compression.
From a communications standpoint, this seems to me to be shortsighted. Bandwidth is getting cheaper even faster than storage, and storage is getting cheaper faster than processing. Compression is a solution to an old problem; one that is rapidly going away.
The real problems (IMHO) are the lack of fine grained security, and the hierarchical (tree) structure that is usually imposed on relational (networked meanings) data. The value of data is often proportional to how many connections it has, and how well we can protect it.
I see a minor problem, in that sections of a program may be heavily used, whereas other areas are used little or not at all. Ideally, I'd like to have shortcut ways of doing things in those areas that I use heavily. Nonetheless, when I try new (to me) features, I'd like to be in the "easy to learn" mode.
I see the need for a very high degree of consistancy in the presentation layer. Without exception.
On the other hand, the underlying functionality layer is the one that needs to have some knowledge of my level of familiarity, and the shortcuts that are available.
I suggest this: apparent hierarchical functionality organization as a default, with networked (shortcutted) organization for heavy use sections.
The gas pedal is on the right, and the brake is to its immediate left.
The automatic transmission shifter sequence is Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, Low, [Lower, [Lowest]]
Th automatic transmission gear slector must be labled as Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, Low... or with the letters P, N, D, L...
The car turns toward the right when the stearing wheel is rotated clockwise.
These standardizations are mandated by law, and have been in the USA since the 1960's. Prior to that time, shifters had various orders, and there was lots of discussion about which was best. Accidents happened when folks picked the wrong gear inadvertently. The popular public demands for safety that resulted in mandated seatbelts also resulted in automobile UI standardization of gearshifts...
that seems the most perjorative way of looking at it...
I think that adhereing to some (any) old UI standard is probably all that's really needed for improved user experiences. two come to mind: The original mac style guide, and the windows 3.1 style guide.
It is certainly possible to have a "UI Mode" dropdown on the menu bar. This would allow for a "dolled up pig" mode, a Mac mode, a W31 mode, and a "user customized" mode.
The key is this: everyone should always be able to get back to some "pure vanilla" mode, so that the experience becomes entirely predictable.
"pigs with lipstick"? They're fine, as long as the user can also go "pure vanilla".
If, for example, the window frame doesn't look familiar, and doesn't have Help in the upper right, and File Save is renamed Keep This...
Then most people will spend some time wondering whether they are about to get unexpected results. The purpose of using the device (hw/sw) is to accomplish some mundane task (99% of the time anyway). Some UI designers can't resist the urge to show the world how clever they are by doing interfaces in an innovative and new way. WAY bad!
The trick isn't to show all functionality. The trick is to present the functionality the user needs, in a logical grouping as the users expect it.
The trick is to balance a few things: Ease of learning for infrequent users, ease of use for heavy users, easy to customize to meet particular user's needs.
Anticompetitive practices by monopolists (if proved in court) can result in triple damages, and usually do. The damages are not limited to market share loss. If it can be shown that MS lowered prices as a competitive tactic, then Novel WP profit loss can be calculated based on the prevailing prices prior to the anticompetitive practices.
Steve cares about the user experience, part of which is hardware. The part of the user experience where he really shines is the GUI, and the Man Machine Interface (MMI). Technophobes love his products, because: [1] they are easy to learn [2]they are easy to use [3] they are suited to the task.
I love cars that look nice, are easy to drive, and get me where I want to go, don't you? If the mechanic has only paid attention to the technology, and gives me a pain in the ass driving experience, then I give him failing marks. Bill's preocupation with code should be a big "yellow flag", not a cause for praise.
For all his focus on sales and marketing, he has forgotten the prime rules of business: understand the customer, and serve the customer.
MS, BG, etc. have an ostensible company mission: a computer on every desk, in every home. The problem is, they're misguided mechanics for the most part, and the ones who aren't are still guided by the "archictural vision" of their cheif mechanic: Mr. Bill.
Hopeing that a pure geek/businessman will build me a great computing environment is like hopeing to get Michelangelo's David from a quarryman
If the Chief Architect doesn't take responsibility for design flaws, he's a terrible leader, at the very least. Aside from that, he should be held responsible by the rest of us.
Bill's incompetence and Steve's brilliance flow from their sense of the aesthetics. Elegance is not an accident. And without elegance, a software design is impossible to fully understand. When such software is built, modified, or used, results will be unpredictable. (rhymes with "bug" and "insecure")
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction... (unquote)
It DOES ALLOW the use of space for military purposes: communication, observation, navigation aids etc. It also does not prohibit the suborbital use of WMD (i.e. ICBMs). Niether does it prohibit "burning out" satelites with energy weapons, or "shooting them down".
The MS UI for configuration of systems makes it quite impossible to see whether we have really found all the little things that need to be set, even when we clearly understand our configuration objectives.
In short, their architectural problems stem from poor cohesiveness, and excessive coupling.
We all use vonNeuman architecture machines these days. The machines which separated data and code were called "Harverd Architecture" and were abandoned long ago.
Microsoft employs tens of thousands of smart people. They will improve their software, eventually.
With Bill Gates as Chief Architect, I doubt that their products will improve much. His track record as a designer is terrible. Contrast him with Steve Jobs; Steve has a great aesthetic sense as witnessed with the Apple II, Lisa, Mac, Mac desktop, Next Step, iPod, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell do you afford to do that? I can barely afford to live in a shithole I'm from with a full-time job, let alone the costs of travelling. We don't all have the luxuries you obviously had.
I bought an ultra-cheap ticket, and got to Frankfurt with less than $55 in my pocket. I stayed in the youth hostel, and got myself a shit job in a garage the next day. I went hungry for three days- the last three before my first pay day. I later took a sick day, went to the airport on a bus, and walked to 10 different freight operations looking for work. I got three offers, and took one with an airline. I later moved to another city, and got another airline job. That one got me free flying on a standby basis. That's how I saw Europe and the world. On the cheap: hand to mouth.
---------
You want success? Find out what you love, do it well, and wholeheartedly
What if you don't love anything? What if doing the thing you love doesn't pay, or you can only do it in some shitty low-paid job which barely pays enough to live in a one-room basement with no elecricity? On average without a degree you're going to earn less money. That's a fact.
yes, on average... but nobody actually is "on average" (who has 2.3 children?) and just reading slashdot leaves you well out of the "on average" stuff, doesn't it?
So I urge you: use your individuality, and your intelligence. Your anger makes me think that you have some social concience about other people who are less fortunate. Nothing wrong with you doing what I do: I work to improve the lot of the poor, especially the poor in India and the far east, where I've traveled.
---------
Jobs and I are motivated by love of what we do.
Consultancy? I can't think of anything more empty and unlikeable and useless to society.
Then don't be a consultant! My customers were delighted to have my help, and the staff I worked with are good freinds to this day.
And what's the alternative? How many people can you think of who got wealthy doing something that they hate? And how many people are despeartely unhappy in their lives in spite of doing what they love?
I moved to Europe, traveled the world for almost 10 years, and then went back to school. Got a 4.0 for several years, taking tough courses about subjects that I really wanted to understand. Then bailed out again and got a job in computing- and have done that ever since.
A few years ago I got my own consulting gig at $120 per hour, and made 1/4 mil per year for the first time in my life.
I think Jobs and I agree on these points: success comes to those who are smart and motivated. Jobs and I are motivated by love of what we do. We knew enough to find out what we love, and had the courage to follow our hearts: all the way to success and good money. Notice: those are not the same. The money came because I was lucky enough to enjoy a field that is in demand. Success also comes to self-fulfilled but poor artists.
You want money? Go to college, get degrees, get well paid work.
You want success? Find out what you love, do it well, and wholeheartedly
drop out, tune in, turn on...
In a similar vein, the military has "red teams" that are hired to challenge defenses.
I'd like to see Microsoft provide "bug bounties". It seems to me that it would be a remarkably cost effective way to discover problems.
NASA has advertised loudly that there is a common docking system. Now you tell us that, well, yes, uhhh, docking, not berthing, and uhh, oh yes we have to design and test some new stuff, and mmmm... theres a couple of other problems....
My point is that astronauts could even do a spacewalk transfer between the Shuttle and Soyuz. If the 1% chance comes up as a emergency, the shuttle can use the OMS to drop it's orbit. Pressure suits sufficient for a short transfer are not "Rocket Science".
NASA is beset by problems, many of them are internal cultural problems. One example is this one, and you, my friend exemplify it beautifully. Rather than looking for and adopting quick, cheap and simple fixes to problems, they insist on goldplating everything they do.
They are also playing politics of the worst kind by threatening to dump Hubble into the sea. They are alienating those of us who agree with their overarching mission, and drying up the political support that their base can give.
wrong on the orbit question as well. The Soyuz can easily reach the Hubble orbit, even when loaded with cosmonauts, but it will be empty, so it takes even less energy....
Bear in mind that for 25 years Congress has been underfunding and stretching out every mission in the NASA budget. NASA can expect to have a ten year delay in the new telescope program, based on the funding record of the Shuttle, the International Space Station, various planetary missions, and the four space based observatories.
I wish I could suggest a solution to the multi-year funding quandry, but I'm not that smart!
I think that what we are seeing is an intricate political dance...
So a crew rescue might take two Soyuz missions, but they are very cheap and reliable. As a standby crew rescue option, Soyuz is a no-brainer.
The 7E7 is the only all-composite passenger aircraft. The composite fusalage construction permits higher cabin pressures and humidity. This results in far better passenger comfort, especially on long flights. I addition, very large windows are possible.
A twin gets up to cruise altitude in about 1/2 to 1/3 of the time of a "quad".
This is because of "excess thrust".
This results in better passenger travel experience for the twins, like the long range 777 and 7E7.
A 777 or 7E7 fying out of Singapore for London, for example, will take 30 minutes to get to cruise, 20 minutes to "seatbelt light out". The 747, A340, A380 take 3x as long.
EXCESS THRUST:
To operate commercially, a plane has to be able to take off and fly with one engine out. So really, from an engineering standpoint, you can think of a 2 engine bird as a 1 engine flying machine, with an extra engine that has enough power to fly the whole airplane. In contrast we think of a 4 engine bird as a 3 engine bird, with an extra engine which is big enough to replace 1/3 of the required "flying power", in case 1 of the 3 goes out.
So a 747 has about 50,000 lb excess thrust, and a 777 has 100,000. you can do the same calculation for the A330 and A340, which share the same structure, except for wings and engines.
If the loan is paid back, it is at an extremely low interest rate, far below the prevailing commercial rates. Why can't you and I get a loan like that?
Maybe you and I didn't come up with yet another aerospace prestige project, like the Concorde, or the Arianne rocket.
From a communications standpoint, this seems to me to be shortsighted. Bandwidth is getting cheaper even faster than storage, and storage is getting cheaper faster than processing. Compression is a solution to an old problem; one that is rapidly going away.
The real problems (IMHO) are the lack of fine grained security, and the hierarchical (tree) structure that is usually imposed on relational (networked meanings) data. The value of data is often proportional to how many connections it has, and how well we can protect it.
I see a minor problem, in that sections of a program may be heavily used, whereas other areas are used little or not at all. Ideally, I'd like to have shortcut ways of doing things in those areas that I use heavily. Nonetheless, when I try new (to me) features, I'd like to be in the "easy to learn" mode.
I see the need for a very high degree of consistancy in the presentation layer. Without exception.
On the other hand, the underlying functionality layer is the one that needs to have some knowledge of my level of familiarity, and the shortcuts that are available.
I suggest this: apparent hierarchical functionality organization as a default, with networked (shortcutted) organization for heavy use sections.
The automatic transmission shifter sequence is Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, Low, [Lower, [Lowest]]
Th automatic transmission gear slector must be labled as Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, Low ... or with the letters P, N, D, L ...
The car turns toward the right when the stearing wheel is rotated clockwise.
These standardizations are mandated by law, and have been in the USA since the 1960's. Prior to that time, shifters had various orders, and there was lots of discussion about which was best. Accidents happened when folks picked the wrong gear inadvertently. The popular public demands for safety that resulted in mandated seatbelts also resulted in automobile UI standardization of gearshifts...
I think that adhereing to some (any) old UI standard is probably all that's really needed for improved user experiences. two come to mind: The original mac style guide, and the windows 3.1 style guide.
It is certainly possible to have a "UI Mode" dropdown on the menu bar. This would allow for a "dolled up pig" mode, a Mac mode, a W31 mode, and a "user customized" mode.
The key is this: everyone should always be able to get back to some "pure vanilla" mode, so that the experience becomes entirely predictable.
"pigs with lipstick"? They're fine, as long as the user can also go "pure vanilla".
If, for example, the window frame doesn't look familiar, and doesn't have Help in the upper right, and File Save is renamed Keep This...
Then most people will spend some time wondering whether they are about to get unexpected results. The purpose of using the device (hw/sw) is to accomplish some mundane task (99% of the time anyway). Some UI designers can't resist the urge to show the world how clever they are by doing interfaces in an innovative and new way. WAY bad!
The trick is to balance a few things: Ease of learning for infrequent users, ease of use for heavy users, easy to customize to meet particular user's needs.
Predictability is the key.
Accrued interest can als be factored in.
Can you say "break the bank"?
And can I claim violation of my right to privacy under a civil rights act?
Any lawyers out there? Ralph Nader? Public Citizen?
I love cars that look nice, are easy to drive, and get me where I want to go, don't you? If the mechanic has only paid attention to the technology, and gives me a pain in the ass driving experience, then I give him failing marks. Bill's preocupation with code should be a big "yellow flag", not a cause for praise.
For all his focus on sales and marketing, he has forgotten the prime rules of business: understand the customer, and serve the customer.
MS, BG, etc. have an ostensible company mission: a computer on every desk, in every home. The problem is, they're misguided mechanics for the most part, and the ones who aren't are still guided by the "archictural vision" of their cheif mechanic: Mr. Bill.
Hopeing that a pure geek/businessman will build me a great computing environment is like hopeing to get Michelangelo's David from a quarryman
Bill's incompetence and Steve's brilliance flow from their sense of the aesthetics. Elegance is not an accident. And without elegance, a software design is impossible to fully understand. When such software is built, modified, or used, results will be unpredictable. (rhymes with "bug" and "insecure")
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction... (unquote)
It DOES ALLOW the use of space for military purposes: communication, observation, navigation aids etc. It also does not prohibit the suborbital use of WMD (i.e. ICBMs). Niether does it prohibit "burning out" satelites with energy weapons, or "shooting them down".
In short, their architectural problems stem from poor cohesiveness, and excessive coupling.
lists are code for LISP
scripts are data for scripting languages
We all use vonNeuman architecture machines these days. The machines which separated data and code were called "Harverd Architecture" and were abandoned long ago.
With Bill Gates as Chief Architect, I doubt that their products will improve much. His track record as a designer is terrible. Contrast him with Steve Jobs; Steve has a great aesthetic sense as witnessed with the Apple II, Lisa, Mac, Mac desktop, Next Step, iPod, etc.