Yes, the micromanagement of manned flight is impressive. But, funny that, it works. When having the wrong ink marker can abort a mission, you think of these sorts of details.
The Shuttle died precisely because of Government interference. Specifically the booster tech (from some idiot Congressman in Utah that I can't recall) and the Air Force which, as is typically, wanted the NCC-1701 with Captain Kirk, phasers and photon torpedoes (and probably Lt. Uhura). If engineers had actually been able to build the shuttle they designed in the first place (booster below, cabin above), it would likely have worked reasonably well (for a technology pushing prototype space vehicle, remember what they're trying to do...).
Our government doesn't have the capability of putting a human in space (we let the Ruskies do it) because we've defunded manned programs in favor of unmanned programs. That is a smart move on NASA's part because you can get a bigger bang for the buck by tossing up robots.
If NASA was funded at any reasonable and consistent level, they would restart the manned program. But the NASA administration is masters of winding through the travails and insults of government funding and they're rather pragmatic to boot.
There was quite a bit of soul searching after Apollo 1 and then the shocking realization that nobody was in charge of the lunatic asylum (literally, get it?). NASA spent several years sitting back and reorganizing the entire enterprise (the TIE - Technical Integration and Evaluation program). One of the little known facts about Apollo is that it made multiple breakthroughs in organizing large, complex technical projects. This furthered development of other, complicated technology based products like the 747 and related aircraft. Things like the LHC could not have been built without the insights that the TIE program developed (pretty much with paper, slide rules and punch cards...).
And, if you want an example of how politics and NASA did not work well together, I remind one and all about the Shuttle.....
And actually, in a bit of reflection, NASA did have to deal with politics at some level. That's why the Lyndon B. Johnson Manned Spaceflight Center is in a pestilential swamp outside of Houston, the Michoud Assembly plant is is a pestilential swamp outside of New Orleans and the Cape is on a nice beach in Florida (surrounded by a pestilential swamp).
But politicians were easily satisfied back then - dump some money in a swamp that nobody could figure out what to do with and they're happy.
Actually, in the beginning, Apollo was so well funded that they had three candidate spacecraft designs running simultaneously. Nobody needed nods and winks. There was enough money go around. The problem was time. The hard and fast 'end of the decade' decision made going fast and expensive the only way it was going to work.
And the law left the 'icky parts' - the annoying but vital bits of enabling legislation to various and sundry Congressional committees and staff at CMMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services). So the programmers had the equivalent of "include a whole bunch of people to do something (details later)".
OK, if it's not so complicated, then how come my small hospital has FOUR people that JUST deal with weird ass details of various insurance companies? Companies who insist that you format the information in one way for them. Each of them. All thirty of them (and counting).
Insurance is a simple concept. Health 'insurance' (and it really isn't insurance in the classic sense) is a complicated mess. And the ACA made it worse. Much worse.
The biggest failing of the ACA is that Obama didn't think he could go up against the insurance companies (and he was likely correct). So they got pretty much what they wanted, their whining notwithstanding. The losers are pretty much everything else. Patients got a few bones. The government got some loopholes and access to information (lovely, just what they needed). Small employers either got a big break or got screwed big time - nobody can tell just yet.
If Congress had written NASA's enabling legislation like the did for the ACA, all of the engineering talent and expense would have gone towards figuring out what the hell was crammed into several hundred thousand pages of internally inconsistent documentation. There would have been enough money left over to buy a couple sets of Legos and some Estes rocket engines.
Of course "Obamacare" looks almost exactly like "Romneycare" which was a Republican invention.
The problem is that the Republicans and the Democrats are, to a first and second approximation, exactly the same thing. Their minor differences and simply talking points that the media uses to get everybody all riled up. They are both fully capable of taking a good idea and grinding it to death under the weight of confusing mandates, pork, pandering to special groups and general malfeasance.
The devil, of course, is in the details. And the devil is a pretty active fellow these days.
The reason you can't buy a (new) computer for $23 isn't Moore's law. It's because manufacturers can't make money on $23 dollar computer (we;re talking personal computer, not embedded something which, can, and does, cost a few bucks).
Support, dealer chain, R&D are much more important than transistors in pricing PCs.
Exactly. Driving emergency vehicles is rather dangerous because, in large part, you are relying on people understanding that you are breaking rules and doing unusual things. MOST drivers wander around in a drug induced haze and are only marginally cognizant of their environment. If vehicles were autonomous, then the fire truck would communicate with all of the other happy little vehicles and tell them it had the right of way. And they would smoothly move to the side of the road or communicate their intentions with the emergency vehicle.
Instead of dealing with an 85 year old grandma in the middle stages of dementia or a twenty something in the middle of an MDMA afternoon, it would be dealing with an AI who is just busy doing whatever it's supposed to be doing (and, of course, if it's Google trying to figure out what your doing so it can monetize it).
No, the biggest incorrect assumption is that lost time = lost productivity. All that would happen is joe's scenario is you would get home 2 minutes earlier so you could watch the Kardishan's or post on Slashdot or whatever useless thing you were planning on doing.
Yep. Been there and done that. I know some people like it but I'll be damned if I can figure out why. When you want it to automate something, you can't. When you want to do something manually, you can't.
The weird bit is Aperture. And not Final Cut X (apparently, FTFA). Aperture has been billed as the 'pro' photography app although it's a bit of a lightweight compared with Adobe (may their souls rot in a maggot infested camel turd) offerings. Likewise Final Cut X - although it acts more like a prosumer app than the previous versions of Final Cut and doesn't do half what Premiere Pro / After Effects does (nor does it cost as much).
If Apple opens up Final Cut to this system, then it's pretty clear that Apple is dropping the high end photography / graphics professionals (all two dozen left) for the much larger, potentially more lucrative 'prosumer' market. Which makes me wonder who, if anyone, is planning on buying the Darth Trashcan when it is available.
Call me confused. Personally, I've never liked any of the Apple apps. iWork was limited and buggy when I tried it a couple of years ago. Aperture is just.... weird. I can't wrap my brains around the work flow and Apple has been rather slow at upgrading it (while Abode Lightroom has actually morphed into a good product). Final Cut X is another program that just doesn't work for me - tries to do automatic things when I don't want it do, doesn't do automatic things that I think it should. IMHO Apple should stick to hardware and OS software, although their attempts to at least try to compete with Adobe (AKA 'slimeballs from Hell') is certainly appreciated.
It was simpler in the thrilling days of yesteryear.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the micromanagement of manned flight is impressive. But, funny that, it works. When having the wrong ink marker can abort a mission, you think of these sorts of details.
The Shuttle died precisely because of Government interference. Specifically the booster tech (from some idiot Congressman in Utah that I can't recall) and the Air Force which, as is typically, wanted the NCC-1701 with Captain Kirk, phasers and photon torpedoes (and probably Lt. Uhura). If engineers had actually been able to build the shuttle they designed in the first place (booster below, cabin above), it would likely have worked reasonably well (for a technology pushing prototype space vehicle, remember what they're trying to do...).
Our government doesn't have the capability of putting a human in space (we let the Ruskies do it) because we've defunded manned programs in favor of unmanned programs. That is a smart move on NASA's part because you can get a bigger bang for the buck by tossing up robots.
If NASA was funded at any reasonable and consistent level, they would restart the manned program. But the NASA administration is masters of winding through the travails and insults of government funding and they're rather pragmatic to boot.
No money, no mission.
When the facts are with you, bang on the facts
When the law is with you, bang on the law.
When neither the facts or the law are on your side, bang on the table.
Sounds like I should never apply for a job with the federal government - I'm worried I'd go postal.
No, you can't. The paperwork makes it well nigh impossible. You drop dead of old age before you get approval.
There was quite a bit of soul searching after Apollo 1 and then the shocking realization that nobody was in charge of the lunatic asylum (literally, get it?). NASA spent several years sitting back and reorganizing the entire enterprise (the TIE - Technical Integration and Evaluation program). One of the little known facts about Apollo is that it made multiple breakthroughs in organizing large, complex technical projects. This furthered development of other, complicated technology based products like the 747 and related aircraft. Things like the LHC could not have been built without the insights that the TIE program developed (pretty much with paper, slide rules and punch cards...).
And, if you want an example of how politics and NASA did not work well together, I remind one and all about the Shuttle.....
And actually, in a bit of reflection, NASA did have to deal with politics at some level. That's why the Lyndon B. Johnson Manned Spaceflight Center is in a pestilential swamp outside of Houston, the Michoud Assembly plant is is a pestilential swamp outside of New Orleans and the Cape is on a nice beach in Florida (surrounded by a pestilential swamp).
But politicians were easily satisfied back then - dump some money in a swamp that nobody could figure out what to do with and they're happy.
This may be the most insightful post in the thread. Physics is easy. Politics is ....
Actually, in the beginning, Apollo was so well funded that they had three candidate spacecraft designs running simultaneously. Nobody needed nods and winks. There was enough money go around. The problem was time. The hard and fast 'end of the decade' decision made going fast and expensive the only way it was going to work.
If you had taken your meds, you wouldn't be saying this. Your post is just one more example of why we need universal coverage.
And the law left the 'icky parts' - the annoying but vital bits of enabling legislation to various and sundry Congressional committees and staff at CMMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services). So the programmers had the equivalent of "include a whole bunch of people to do something (details later)".
They're still working out the details....
OK, if it's not so complicated, then how come my small hospital has FOUR people that JUST deal with weird ass details of various insurance companies? Companies who insist that you format the information in one way for them. Each of them. All thirty of them (and counting).
Insurance is a simple concept. Health 'insurance' (and it really isn't insurance in the classic sense) is a complicated mess. And the ACA made it worse. Much worse.
The biggest failing of the ACA is that Obama didn't think he could go up against the insurance companies (and he was likely correct). So they got pretty much what they wanted, their whining notwithstanding. The losers are pretty much everything else. Patients got a few bones. The government got some loopholes and access to information (lovely, just what they needed). Small employers either got a big break or got screwed big time - nobody can tell just yet.
If Congress had written NASA's enabling legislation like the did for the ACA, all of the engineering talent and expense would have gone towards figuring out what the hell was crammed into several hundred thousand pages of internally inconsistent documentation. There would have been enough money left over to buy a couple sets of Legos and some Estes rocket engines.
OK, so where should be get the next crop of politicians from, garbage men?
Of course "Obamacare" looks almost exactly like "Romneycare" which was a Republican invention.
The problem is that the Republicans and the Democrats are, to a first and second approximation, exactly the same thing. Their minor differences and simply talking points that the media uses to get everybody all riled up. They are both fully capable of taking a good idea and grinding it to death under the weight of confusing mandates, pork, pandering to special groups and general malfeasance.
The devil, of course, is in the details. And the devil is a pretty active fellow these days.
Oh thanks. That explains things. I wondered where the "as well as an inexpensive source of power -- the sea" quote came from.
Other than the journalist's last hit off the bong.
Japanese use seawater for cooling their nuclear reactors so I guess there must be some advantage in doing exactly that.
You can use tsunamis to rapidly cool your core after the earthquake shuts the system down.
Oh. Wait.
So when you're driving today you're in a state of being aware of the situation and are engaged with the surroundings.
In theory. In practice you're fucking with the radio while ogling the bicyclist in spandex.
Onboard computer: "Wow, look that that cute little MacBook over there!"
** Crash ***
We have a lot of work to do yet.
Smile into the camera please. No, not that camera. The little tiny one you didn't know was there....
Most criminals won't be that smart. Certainly the politicians won't be (don't worry Senator, we turned all the recorders off....)
The reason you can't buy a (new) computer for $23 isn't Moore's law. It's because manufacturers can't make money on $23 dollar computer (we;re talking personal computer, not embedded something which, can, and does, cost a few bucks).
Support, dealer chain, R&D are much more important than transistors in pricing PCs.
Exactly. Driving emergency vehicles is rather dangerous because, in large part, you are relying on people understanding that you are breaking rules and doing unusual things. MOST drivers wander around in a drug induced haze and are only marginally cognizant of their environment. If vehicles were autonomous, then the fire truck would communicate with all of the other happy little vehicles and tell them it had the right of way. And they would smoothly move to the side of the road or communicate their intentions with the emergency vehicle.
Instead of dealing with an 85 year old grandma in the middle stages of dementia or a twenty something in the middle of an MDMA afternoon, it would be dealing with an AI who is just busy doing whatever it's supposed to be doing (and, of course, if it's Google trying to figure out what your doing so it can monetize it).
As cars become automated, and more states follow Colorado and Washington in legalizing drugs,
Stoned autonomous cars?
This is not the future I signed up for.
No, the biggest incorrect assumption is that lost time = lost productivity. All that would happen is joe's scenario is you would get home 2 minutes earlier so you could watch the Kardishan's or post on Slashdot or whatever useless thing you were planning on doing.
Joe's scenario isn't doing anyone any favors....
I think the plaintiff's lawyers are going to like that particular post.
"It's an ill wind that blows nobody good."
Yep. Been there and done that. I know some people like it but I'll be damned if I can figure out why. When you want it to automate something, you can't. When you want to do something manually, you can't.
Different strokes, I suppose.
I sure hope to hell that they are teaching the basics of encryption in journalism classes these days....
The weird bit is Aperture. And not Final Cut X (apparently, FTFA). Aperture has been billed as the 'pro' photography app although it's a bit of a lightweight compared with Adobe (may their souls rot in a maggot infested camel turd) offerings. Likewise Final Cut X - although it acts more like a prosumer app than the previous versions of Final Cut and doesn't do half what Premiere Pro / After Effects does (nor does it cost as much).
If Apple opens up Final Cut to this system, then it's pretty clear that Apple is dropping the high end photography / graphics professionals (all two dozen left) for the much larger, potentially more lucrative 'prosumer' market. Which makes me wonder who, if anyone, is planning on buying the Darth Trashcan when it is available.
Call me confused. Personally, I've never liked any of the Apple apps. iWork was limited and buggy when I tried it a couple of years ago. Aperture is just.... weird. I can't wrap my brains around the work flow and Apple has been rather slow at upgrading it (while Abode Lightroom has actually morphed into a good product). Final Cut X is another program that just doesn't work for me - tries to do automatic things when I don't want it do, doesn't do automatic things that I think it should. IMHO Apple should stick to hardware and OS software, although their attempts to at least try to compete with Adobe (AKA 'slimeballs from Hell') is certainly appreciated.
It was simpler in the thrilling days of yesteryear.