He took some engineering courses in college, so that he has the amplitude to complete an engineering-required task, much like an engineer [by training] trying to develop a DSP s/w driver on Linux (he's not a computer scientist afterall).
To most non-engineers, they only know one method of engineering that's easy to understand: trial and error. That is something all engineers take for granted and something that makes engineering intuitive...and why it is a discipline: that anyone can learn it.
This is just a learning curve for SpaceX. It's not going to be roses for these guys as much as the Internet-to-Space investors want it to be. And I'm sure Musk and his ex-JPL/NASA boys know this. There's going to be more (and even spectacular) failures initially than successes. Just ask Orbital--Orbital Sciences has been through this as the OP said... decades ago.
The theory is that drones should fly better than manned aircraft--makes logical sense since drones are essentially robots/computers.
The experience is that drone crash more often and mainly caused by human error. Since drones are remotely controlled exclusively, not in a supervisory manner.
The practice is that drone control, equipment, telemetry and pilot training, though not classified as manned operation, were based on manned operation principles (e.g. rules of engagement for instance).
Basically the Human Machine Interface, which includes user interfaces, operational protocol, and vehicle capabilities (i.e. features) is based on manned experience and at this point, we can conclude it doesn't work. We are scratching the surface on proper drone oepration. I'm sure experts back in 1995 generals were thinking, "Oh, it's just like manned flight/operation w/o the physical person in the craft... viola! Done..."
BUT, it doesn't mean drones and the concept of drones are less worthy than manned aircraft. The HMI interface is just wrong. And a lot of the autonomous tech and what's being created on the hobby side is showing that there's a better HMI interface.
I find the new problems will relate to the problem of scale. Large scale, such as that in relationship to entropy. We think today's speak of scale, from biological systems, to CERN data results to the Internet architecture, is complex/hard. We have just scratch the surface of what's to come. And that's coming from a trained physicist.
What we see today, inventions are not science, but that of exploitation of science. With the popularity of "making money" (capitalism is just one of many methods of), we are in the age of science exploitation. That's why the current attitude is that "we're done"... and the result? Social technologies.... creativity is mostly being used to create connections and products and not explain nature. That's not right or wrong, but just the facts.
It's Apple. Linux is just a side show as Apple is eating MS's lunch.
Basically, Dell has brand cache and [used to build] rock solid hardware. If MS can snatch Dell up without paying much (either a buyout, takeover or... loan), then they can compete against Apple and can create the pro-business desire of the elusive closed ecosystem. Nokia is a sinking ship for MS (just keeps everyone at bay). As for servers, pay up on service contracts (MS's ecosystem) or hire expensive sysadmins (Linux)--all ends up costing the same for the commercial user due to the integration problem.
A this point of Linux server adoption, MS likely thinks Linux can go for the guys not willing to pay up or want their own support.... In hopes that it accelerates the environment of Linux apps that are unlicensable (e.g. Mpeg4), slow (the latest DEs), incompatible (mobile, video, flash), or closed (e.g. Android in some respects).
The Tomcat/Linux combo is not because of performance or technology.
It's just when you use tomcat and Java,9 out of 10 IT pros might as well go free and clear with free (not as in beer) Linux instead of paying for Windows, MSDN support, subscripts and stuff. It's not about the tech, it's about the cash!
And folks, please don't interpret clinical depression with these summarize-it-all-under-one-idea fallacy. It's a very, very complex issue. We don't know the full of Swartz's situation. Pressure could have driven him over the edge, mental history maybe, connection with people around him.... it's complex. And so speculation ensues.
As well as myself having a parent w/depression from Cancer treatment (and ended passing), and 2 sisters clinically treated from 2 different types of depression (one that some will say is by the 'defiance' struggle and the other, well was from mental issues) and experiencing different views of their thoughts when I talked with them... I say it's a disease.
It's amazing the internet opens so much of our "private" lives, much like it did of Aaron's, yet we didn't "know" him. The internet just gives us enough information to exploit. And that pretty much sums it up.
Still going strong. One thing cool about/. is that pioneers of the open source revolution (from Cerf, RMS, Duff, Linus, Eric, etc..) has posted on this site, under their alter egos or as is.
"The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed."
That a direct result to why the 1st option happens. People are trained to go into 'flight' mode and that's a result of 'not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.'
Otherwise, it would be the 1850's and we'd be in gunslinger battles. Though cool to some, the toll would be 2-3x the size and 10x more casualties/collateral damage.
Note, the politicians will spin this either way for their own benefit...
But in the end, TSA's mission was something no one knew how to figure out.
And much like the Space Program, which had a lot of failures before Apollo, if you don't know what the solution is, it's going to cost a lot. Ask any researcher, it's going to be wasteful and big budget. If TSA knew how to solve it's mission beforehand everything would be peachy: e.g. standard gov't waste.
Also, that's why Linux is cheap, we knew what needed to be done! (j/k)
"so many recent exploits have used Java as their attack vector, "
You guys are sure the increase exploits are not because of the hatred of Oracle in Oracle V. Google? Hmmm... Last year is was/. trolling with Flash since Apple made it's argument. Before that it was AVC (vs Ogg or WebM, cause of Apple, Google, FOSS).
This year it appears to be Java.
Even not considering those politics, most attacks, in Java and all frameworks are due to poor implementation by the appdev.
Actually if you take the conclusion one way, one could say that not only probability theory failed us, but simulations are nothing but a feel good (cause to realize the chances, one takes the probability and models/simulates it).
Cause we all know simulations are just tweaking reality into what we want to hear (i.e. what we want to be fact). Right?
LAMP is a powerful tool, then again there's MS's solution, Oracle's solution, IBM's, Apple's and Google's (which uses some of LAMP). Most folks I know that use LAMP dev on the live server. Most folks I know that use the other frameworks simulate, then ad-hoc test then test on the server.
Problem is that paradigm works clearly when you can have failures on the metal, aka the server--in that world you revert to older code or reboot.
That's not the case with Robots--you test on the metal and usually can't afford crashing the server (which typically crash the metal). Proprietary still rules for the near future because of that. I'm surprise why ROS has not been tested in a rigorous real time manufacturing environment nor WG expressing any interest to evolve ROS to be a tested/solid framework.
Who says development must proceed down the same paradigm? Sure 10-12yrs from now the business side of the gaming industry sure hopes so (cause costs of doing the exact same development with basic increments in innovation == higher profits).
"5000 TFLOPS Sweeney thinks will be needed for the 8000x4000"
For all I know 10yrs from now: a. games will be headsets or beamed into your head (4K resolution, mind that resolution in general makes no sense) b. I sure some new algorithm will solve the 5000TFlops issues, likely reduce it to 1TFLOPS, cause that's what game research is all about, the algorithms....)
Tim's not thinking "out of the box"--which is what innovation is all about. Just sayin'...
Slashdot Mirror
He took some engineering courses in college, so that he has the amplitude to complete an engineering-required task, much like an engineer [by training] trying to develop a DSP s/w driver on Linux (he's not a computer scientist afterall).
To most non-engineers, they only know one method of engineering that's easy to understand: trial and error. That is something all engineers take for granted and something that makes engineering intuitive...and why it is a discipline: that anyone can learn it.
This is just a learning curve for SpaceX. It's not going to be roses for these guys as much as the Internet-to-Space investors want it to be. And I'm sure Musk and his ex-JPL/NASA boys know this. There's going to be more (and even spectacular) failures initially than successes. Just ask Orbital--Orbital Sciences has been through this as the OP said... decades ago.
Still rooting for them though.
I'm wondering where Virgin G is nowadays...
university: innovative thinking
military: innovative action (processes and products)
then there's
Silicon Valley: innovative way of making money... hey, aren't there lots of gaming companies in the valley?
The theory is that drones should fly better than manned aircraft--makes logical sense since drones are essentially robots/computers.
The experience is that drone crash more often and mainly caused by human error. Since drones are remotely controlled exclusively, not in a supervisory manner.
The practice is that drone control, equipment, telemetry and pilot training, though not classified as manned operation, were based on manned operation principles (e.g. rules of engagement for instance).
Basically the Human Machine Interface, which includes user interfaces, operational protocol, and vehicle capabilities (i.e. features) is based on manned experience and at this point, we can conclude it doesn't work. We are scratching the surface on proper drone oepration. I'm sure experts back in 1995 generals were thinking, "Oh, it's just like manned flight/operation w/o the physical person in the craft... viola! Done..."
BUT, it doesn't mean drones and the concept of drones are less worthy than manned aircraft. The HMI interface is just wrong. And a lot of the autonomous tech and what's being created on the hobby side is showing that there's a better HMI interface.
I find the new problems will relate to the problem of scale. Large scale, such as that in relationship to entropy. We think today's speak of scale, from biological systems, to CERN data results to the Internet architecture, is complex/hard. We have just scratch the surface of what's to come. And that's coming from a trained physicist.
What we see today, inventions are not science, but that of exploitation of science. With the popularity of "making money" (capitalism is just one of many methods of), we are in the age of science exploitation. That's why the current attitude is that "we're done"... and the result? Social technologies....
creativity is mostly being used to create connections and products and not explain nature. That's not right or wrong, but just the facts.
Good ol Dice...
There was a time not so long ago, (late 90's) when the name Dice.com was fitting (i.e. a roll of the dice).
It's Apple. Linux is just a side show as Apple is eating MS's lunch.
Basically, Dell has brand cache and [used to build] rock solid hardware. If MS can snatch Dell up without paying much (either a buyout, takeover or... loan), then they can compete against Apple and can create the pro-business desire of the elusive closed ecosystem. Nokia is a sinking ship for MS (just keeps everyone at bay). As for servers, pay up on service contracts (MS's ecosystem) or hire expensive sysadmins (Linux)--all ends up costing the same for the commercial user due to the integration problem.
A this point of Linux server adoption, MS likely thinks Linux can go for the guys not willing to pay up or want their own support.... In hopes that it accelerates the environment of Linux apps that are unlicensable (e.g. Mpeg4), slow (the latest DEs), incompatible (mobile, video, flash), or closed (e.g. Android in some respects).
The Tomcat/Linux combo is not because of performance or technology.
It's just when you use tomcat and Java,9 out of 10 IT pros might as well go free and clear with free (not as in beer) Linux instead of paying for Windows, MSDN support, subscripts and stuff. It's not about the tech, it's about the cash!
Bingo.
And folks, please don't interpret clinical depression with these summarize-it-all-under-one-idea fallacy. It's a very, very complex issue. We don't know the full of Swartz's situation. Pressure could have driven him over the edge, mental history maybe, connection with people around him.... it's complex. And so speculation ensues.
As well as myself having a parent w/depression from Cancer treatment (and ended passing), and 2 sisters clinically treated from 2 different types of depression (one that some will say is by the 'defiance' struggle and the other, well was from mental issues) and experiencing different views of their thoughts when I talked with them... I say it's a disease.
It's amazing the internet opens so much of our "private" lives, much like it did of Aaron's, yet we didn't "know" him. The internet just gives us enough information to exploit. And that pretty much sums it up.
Earliest page the web archive is storing...
Still going strong. One thing cool about /. is that pioneers of the open source revolution (from Cerf, RMS, Duff, Linus, Eric, etc..) has posted on this site, under their alter egos or as is.
"The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed."
That a direct result to why the 1st option happens. People are trained to go into 'flight' mode and that's a result of 'not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.'
Otherwise, it would be the 1850's and we'd be in gunslinger battles. Though cool to some, the toll would be 2-3x the size and 10x more casualties/collateral damage.
"use Facebook because they feel "forced" to do so. "
That's the Apple effect. When your associated links (people, tools, apps) are in a walled-garden/ecosystem, you're always "forced".
Same thing for Friendster, Linked-in, and foursquare.
Twitter appears to be the only social media outlet that has stabilized--thing about it.
Death of the fat-client makes sense for the multimedia, e-commerce world.
But for real-time, mission critical? I'll stick with fat-clients with a mobile component for now.
Also it's easier to cut a important piece of fiber connecting your servers to the exchange when it's in Ohio vs NYC.
giggity.
"Sheldon-like snobbish mathematicians who look down on CS majors as failed math majors."
Hence, I can conclude that Physicists are lazy math majors. I can vouch for that at least :)
Good layman description of the Scientific Method.
Anyway my conclusion from TFA:
Why are smart people are stupid: Narcissism
Why the New Yorker prints out articles like that: Hubris
Note, the politicians will spin this either way for their own benefit...
But in the end, TSA's mission was something no one knew how to figure out.
And much like the Space Program, which had a lot of failures before Apollo, if you don't know what the solution is, it's going to cost a lot. Ask any researcher, it's going to be wasteful and big budget. If TSA knew how to solve it's mission beforehand everything would be peachy: e.g. standard gov't waste.
Also, that's why Linux is cheap, we knew what needed to be done! (j/k)
"so many recent exploits have used Java as their attack vector, "
You guys are sure the increase exploits are not because of the hatred of Oracle in Oracle V. Google? Hmmm... Last year is was /. trolling with Flash since Apple made it's argument. Before that it was AVC (vs Ogg or WebM, cause of Apple, Google, FOSS).
This year it appears to be Java.
Even not considering those politics, most attacks, in Java and all frameworks are due to poor implementation by the appdev.
It's sort of like we're measuring a solar sail effect to the point that there is such thing as a Cd value in space.
Actually if you take the conclusion one way, one could say that not only probability theory failed us, but simulations are nothing but a feel good (cause to realize the chances, one takes the probability and models/simulates it).
Cause we all know simulations are just tweaking reality into what we want to hear (i.e. what we want to be fact). Right?
LAMP is a powerful tool, then again there's MS's solution, Oracle's solution, IBM's, Apple's and Google's (which uses some of LAMP). Most folks I know that use LAMP dev on the live server. Most folks I know that use the other frameworks simulate, then ad-hoc test then test on the server.
Problem is that paradigm works clearly when you can have failures on the metal, aka the server--in that world you revert to older code or reboot.
That's not the case with Robots--you test on the metal and usually can't afford crashing the server (which typically crash the metal). Proprietary still rules for the near future because of that. I'm surprise why ROS has not been tested in a rigorous real time manufacturing environment nor WG expressing any interest to evolve ROS to be a tested/solid framework.
"aerospace engineering tolerances" ...
"optimistic for something that large"...?
Well, unless the robots build it... likely after we have them complete the Matrix.
Who says development must proceed down the same paradigm? Sure 10-12yrs from now the business side of the gaming industry sure hopes so (cause costs of doing the exact same development with basic increments in innovation == higher profits).
"5000 TFLOPS Sweeney thinks will be needed for the 8000x4000"
For all I know 10yrs from now:
a. games will be headsets or beamed into your head (4K resolution, mind that resolution in general makes no sense)
b. I sure some new algorithm will solve the 5000TFlops issues, likely reduce it to 1TFLOPS, cause that's what game research is all about, the algorithms....)
Tim's not thinking "out of the box"--which is what innovation is all about. Just sayin'...