I am Appalled at the lack of art knowledge at Slashdot!
Certainly camera obscura has been know for centuries but many artists can do as well without it.
In second grade, I had a friend with who could copy any picture by hand from memory. He had a game where he would see how long it would take for someone to figure out which picture it was while he drew the lines randomly. He had a photographic memory and the ability to freehand a straight line or circle. . . . Now he's a dentist.
Considering some farm animals can convert two pounds of feed into more than a pound of food, a 60% savings means that 0.8 pounds of feed could become a pound of feed. It's as plausible as a perpetual motion machine. Besides, where I live, most of the cattle graze on grass, which I can't digest.
This is another example of Program Suicide, which has been responsible for so many Big Projects programs being killed. When the budget gets tight, the leaders of different sections of the program start fighting for resources. They start campaigning for allies outside the program, who in turn use the in-fighting to as an excuse to have the program cut. In this case, NASA as a whole is committing suicide. Manned vs. Robotic programs, Inner planets vs. Outer planets, missions vs. research. Add to this the groups pushing commercial space vs. NASA, and the whole U.S. space program is killing itself. There are a lot of groups that want NASA's money and the space community is helping those groups to get it. If we kill the space program this way, we deserve the consequences!
If his team is contracted to a larger organization, they may have people who can help. Some government organizations have independent support groups and research centers that can review your project and give advice. For instance, NASA has an IV&V group in West Virginia.
A tool won't do you any good if you don't use it. You should look for tools that fit your team's culture. If you can afford the time to do it, pick the tools that look the most promising to your team and give them a trial run. It's hard to beat actual experience with the tools and the supporting processes. I understand that this costs time and other resources but the commitment to a toolset/process will be more expensive, especially if you choose one that you can't live with. That also applies to not not getting anything.
The tool that works for one project or team does not necessarily work for the next.
It has already been proven to be economically feasible. It's used to grow marijuana in many cities today. In fact, this may be the inspiration for the project.
I think the keys are that it's quick, asynchronous and signals the recipient.
You can always fire off an email at a whim without regard for whether the addressee is available but take my time writing if I wish. In addition, you don't have to respond unless you want to. You don't even need to check it unless you want to but, if you do, you know immediately what's new.
Everything else I've seen falls short somewhere.
We didn't get what we wanted with either the shuttle or ISS. I think it's time to say, "Well, that didn't work. Let's try something different." However, we've learned quite a bit and can apply the lessons on the next generation. I don't expect that we can apply all the lessons. We can't even agree on what they are. We can try to address some of the big problems.
Here are a couple things I think we may(?) have learned:
1) projects over $1 Billion or so are difficult to manage efficiently,
2) budgets need to be more reliable for long term projects,
3) space exploration and space development are not the same.
I think that the manned space program is really more about space development than exploration. As such, I think it should be split off of NASA and given its own agency with a budget that is separate and managed as a long term investment. NASA has done very well in more science oriented ventures, such as the Mars rovers, Deep Impact and Cassini. Apollo was successful, but the time from inception to a man on the Moon was still less than ten years. The shuttle project is over thirty years old! The management techniques used for the science missions does not work for building a space infrastructure. The shuttle was meant to be the foundation of a space transportation system and ISS was to be a colonial foothold.
Think of this, thirty years after Apollo, we haven't gone back. Thirty years after Columbus, there were cities in the Spanish colonies with paved roads and a university!
I think the most important thing is to go after a degree in a subject you like. A secondary issue is which subjects you have a talent for. Whether it looks like a profitable career choice is at best the third place contender.
If you love the subject, you can often overcome a weakness in your talent and still be happy. The extra effort you will need to excell will come naturally and be more tolerable (maybe even fun). There is always a job for someone who does it well.
As for the money . . . . What are you going to spend it on? Why earn $200,000 a year if spending half of it on yourself still doesn't make you as happy as a $100,000 job?
I've know several people who went into high tech careers for the money and later burnt out. The took much lower paying jobs and came out happier.
It's a matter of what you want from life.
Also, keep in mind, the job market shifts. Your career will span several major changes in the industry. There are no sure fire careers.
Finally, if you can't decide which you like best, go for both. Hardware and software need eachother. Embedded systems are everywhere and they need people who can work in both worlds.
Slashdot Mirror
I am Appalled at the lack of art knowledge at Slashdot! Certainly camera obscura has been know for centuries but many artists can do as well without it. In second grade, I had a friend with who could copy any picture by hand from memory. He had a game where he would see how long it would take for someone to figure out which picture it was while he drew the lines randomly. He had a photographic memory and the ability to freehand a straight line or circle. . . . Now he's a dentist.
Considering some farm animals can convert two pounds of feed into more than a pound of food, a 60% savings means that 0.8 pounds of feed could become a pound of feed. It's as plausible as a perpetual motion machine. Besides, where I live, most of the cattle graze on grass, which I can't digest.
This is another example of Program Suicide, which has been responsible for so many Big Projects programs being killed. When the budget gets tight, the leaders of different sections of the program start fighting for resources. They start campaigning for allies outside the program, who in turn use the in-fighting to as an excuse to have the program cut. In this case, NASA as a whole is committing suicide. Manned vs. Robotic programs, Inner planets vs. Outer planets, missions vs. research. Add to this the groups pushing commercial space vs. NASA, and the whole U.S. space program is killing itself. There are a lot of groups that want NASA's money and the space community is helping those groups to get it. If we kill the space program this way, we deserve the consequences!
If his team is contracted to a larger organization, they may have people who can help. Some government organizations have independent support groups and research centers that can review your project and give advice. For instance, NASA has an IV&V group in West Virginia.
A tool won't do you any good if you don't use it. You should look for tools that fit your team's culture. If you can afford the time to do it, pick the tools that look the most promising to your team and give them a trial run. It's hard to beat actual experience with the tools and the supporting processes. I understand that this costs time and other resources but the commitment to a toolset/process will be more expensive, especially if you choose one that you can't live with. That also applies to not not getting anything. The tool that works for one project or team does not necessarily work for the next.
My point was that it would only make sense for high value crops. Truffles? Saffron?
I should have ended with a smiley. I think the guys at Columbia have been spending too much time smoking something.
8-)
It has already been proven to be economically feasible. It's used to grow marijuana in many cities today. In fact, this may be the inspiration for the project.
I think the keys are that it's quick, asynchronous and signals the recipient. You can always fire off an email at a whim without regard for whether the addressee is available but take my time writing if I wish. In addition, you don't have to respond unless you want to. You don't even need to check it unless you want to but, if you do, you know immediately what's new. Everything else I've seen falls short somewhere.
I pretty much agree with Griffin.
We didn't get what we wanted with either the shuttle or ISS. I think it's time to say, "Well, that didn't work. Let's try something different." However, we've learned quite a
bit and can apply the lessons on the next generation. I don't expect that we can apply all the lessons. We can't even agree on what they are. We can try to address some of the big problems.
Here are a couple things I think we may(?) have learned:
1) projects over $1 Billion or so are difficult to manage efficiently,
2) budgets need to be more reliable for long term projects,
3) space exploration and space development are not the same.
I think that the manned space program is really more about space development than exploration. As such, I think it should be split off of NASA and given its own agency with a budget that is separate and managed as a long term investment. NASA has done very well in more science oriented ventures, such as the Mars rovers, Deep Impact and Cassini.
Apollo was successful, but the time from inception to a man on the Moon was still less than ten years. The shuttle project is over thirty years old! The management techniques used for the science missions does not work for building a space infrastructure. The shuttle was meant to be the foundation of a space transportation system and ISS was to be a colonial foothold.
Think of this, thirty years after Apollo, we haven't gone back. Thirty years after Columbus, there were cities in the Spanish colonies with paved roads and a university!
Alcanazar
I think the most important thing is to go after a degree in a subject you like. A secondary issue is which subjects you have a talent for. Whether it looks like a profitable career choice is at best the third place contender.
If you love the subject, you can often overcome a weakness in your talent and still be happy. The extra effort you will need to excell will come naturally and be more tolerable (maybe even fun). There is always a job for someone who does it well.
As for the money . . . . What are you going to spend it on? Why earn $200,000 a year if spending half of it on yourself still doesn't make you as happy as a $100,000 job?
I've know several people who went into high tech careers for the money and later burnt out. The took much lower paying jobs and came out happier.
It's a matter of what you want from life.
Also, keep in mind, the job market shifts. Your career will span several major changes in the industry. There are no sure fire careers.
Finally, if you can't decide which you like best, go for both. Hardware and software need eachother. Embedded systems are everywhere and they need people who can work in both worlds.