Previous schemes like this have run into problems getting the requirements straight...
In general, if coordinating domain issues (business requirements) are not the bottleneck, then something is wrong.
In the desktop days, typical in-house or custom CRUD software was relatively easy to make such that knowing and working with the domain was the bottleneck, like it should be, not the technical details.
However, the web stack came along and complicated CRUD UI's, making it an arcane labor-intensive art with too many layers: server side code, client side code, HTML, CSS, a framework of some sort, and the database. In the desktop days you usually just had the app code and the database. They were aesthetically ugly, but did the job well.
It's true that if one masters a web framework, they can be quite proficient, but it's hard to find replacement devs who know the same framework well.
If the screwy web-stack remains a must*, then an org still needs an analyst/coordinator who knows the domain ropes. Otherwise, you dump the analyst problem onto end-users, who are then constantly in contact with the contractor trying to tune the software via trial and error.
They can eventually get it right, but they are usually not skilled enough in software design to ask the right questions up front such that the wheel gets reinvented the hard way. An experienced analyst can spot potential rough or fuzzy spots up front so that they don't sneak up after the fact. The later you add a feature in the design cycle, the more shanty-town-like becomes the product.
Co's always seem to want to cut corners by chopping out the "middle man" analyst, but it usually backfires by complicating end users' lives and making a mess of the software.
True, if you have a bad analyst, then having no analyst may be the better option. But if the org wants to do it right, find good analysts and give them time to learn your domain.
If they are good, they can often leverage existing staff so that outsourcing is not necessary.
* Web UI's simplified desktop support's job by removing the installation steps (if done right) and DLL Hell, but not without trade-offs.
Intel knows they have to let AMD live for at least 4 reasons:
1. Avoid anti-trust lawsuits over x86 chips.
2. Have a second-source option so that vendors don't switch to ARM. Contracting practices for critical equipment often require more than one part source (vendor).
3. Keep the x86 market viable. Without producer competition, x86 may die a slow death.
It was the local boy-scouts who "presented" it to them.
But in general they should have X-rayed it before mounting it. I suppose that may be difficult to pull off in the Soviet Union. An alternative is to photograph it, send the photos to expert carvers, and make and mount a duplicate.
Maybe "accidentally" drop the original so that if you are caught throwing it away, you have an alibi: "we accidentally dropped it, and made a duplicate because we didn't want to offend the boy-scouts."
Mariner 8 (failed) was a duplicate orbiter companion to Mariner 9.
Volume of returned data may also be a factor. The Earth antennas may have difficulty absorbing data from two probes at the same time.
I suppose you can put them in opposite orbits to spread out rely times, but it's hard to keep them opposite if you want to orbit at different or changing angles, which is often desired for surveys.
"It looks like you've been in an accident. Would you like to hire a Bing lawyer or a certified Bing plastic surgeon? Press '2' if your mouth doesn't work. Press '3' if '2' is damaged. If your wallet flew out the window, please hang up."
"[Apple] told...you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life"
this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be...
If I could expect "glory", big stock, and/or resume credit, I may have considered such when younger.
I've actually been promised similar things, BUT the owners flaked in the end or the product flopped. I roughly cloned Ebay in 4 weeks once under such pretenses. (I was cross-eyed at the end.)
9 times out of 10 when you are asked to "sell your soul for glory", there's nothing at the end of the tunnel but bulls8t and disappointment. But, the young and restless often like such gambles even if success is unlikely.
I recommend it at least ONCE in your life, before or after you have a family to support. When you get older you then won't kick yourself for not trying when you had the stamina or time. I'm disappointed I never made it big from such gambles, but glad I tried a couple of times.
Actually, the Phoenix Mars Lander was built in part from duplicate spare parts from the failed Mars Polar Lander, plus parts from a cancelled mission called "Mars 2001 Surveyor". NASA does reuse stuff.
duplication is [relatively] trivial. So, why aren't we, the Earthlings, sending 2, 3, or 5 identical sibling-apparatuses on each mission?...Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?
US probes got much more reliable over time.
A big part of the cost is the still the launch vehicle and fuel. It may be that probes are now considered reliable enough that the cost of a duplicate launch is not worth it.
Since the 80's, US probes are roughly 90% successful (excluding annoying non-show-stopper glitches) such that a duplicate launch may not be economical.
Japan may be in a different boat, though. They are still in the learning stage similar to the US in the 60's. Plus, if you duplicate probes, you also duplicate design flaws.
One of the lessons Japan should be learning is to design the probe flexible and with enough spare fuel for contingencies. Their missions seem to not work right on the first try such that being able to try again during the mission could be really helpful. For example, if you design an asteroid sampling mission, allow it to be able to try to grab a sample multiple times, and with feedback sensors to learn from each try.
It seems nations get overzealous with their early missions. For example, one of Russia's early 70's Mars landers had little rover. If they had instead focused on reliability, they may have had the first (undisputed) successful Mars landing. They put in too many bells and whistles.
The US also did such with the Ranger program of the early 60's. They kept failing, and they eventually simplified and stripped every scientific instrument off of the probes except the camera systems. Until you perfect the art, K.I.S.S.
you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs
That's a common claim of conservatives, but it's only a theory. Other countries have put in place forms of "protectionism" without causing more poor, and even do better in that arena than we do.
Plus, most of the basics do NOT come from China: food, water, housing, medical care. Plastic lawn-chairs are not a "necessity".
Slashdot Mirror
There's always a market selling to PHB's who don't know better and don't care to ask, so are riding the Learn-The-Hard-Way Express.
Marketers are trained to find and spot gullible PHB's, like a leopard spotting wounded prey a mile away.
In general, if coordinating domain issues (business requirements) are not the bottleneck, then something is wrong.
In the desktop days, typical in-house or custom CRUD software was relatively easy to make such that knowing and working with the domain was the bottleneck, like it should be, not the technical details.
However, the web stack came along and complicated CRUD UI's, making it an arcane labor-intensive art with too many layers: server side code, client side code, HTML, CSS, a framework of some sort, and the database. In the desktop days you usually just had the app code and the database. They were aesthetically ugly, but did the job well.
It's true that if one masters a web framework, they can be quite proficient, but it's hard to find replacement devs who know the same framework well.
If the screwy web-stack remains a must*, then an org still needs an analyst/coordinator who knows the domain ropes. Otherwise, you dump the analyst problem onto end-users, who are then constantly in contact with the contractor trying to tune the software via trial and error.
They can eventually get it right, but they are usually not skilled enough in software design to ask the right questions up front such that the wheel gets reinvented the hard way. An experienced analyst can spot potential rough or fuzzy spots up front so that they don't sneak up after the fact. The later you add a feature in the design cycle, the more shanty-town-like becomes the product.
Co's always seem to want to cut corners by chopping out the "middle man" analyst, but it usually backfires by complicating end users' lives and making a mess of the software.
True, if you have a bad analyst, then having no analyst may be the better option. But if the org wants to do it right, find good analysts and give them time to learn your domain.
If they are good, they can often leverage existing staff so that outsourcing is not necessary.
* Web UI's simplified desktop support's job by removing the installation steps (if done right) and DLL Hell, but not without trade-offs.
...get back off my lawn!
No, the brain also runs on love and beer.
It's obsolete, Chairs 2.0 is out.
Intel knows they have to let AMD live for at least 4 reasons:
1. Avoid anti-trust lawsuits over x86 chips.
2. Have a second-source option so that vendors don't switch to ARM. Contracting practices for critical equipment often require more than one part source (vendor).
3. Keep the x86 market viable. Without producer competition, x86 may die a slow death.
4. Have someone to steal ideas from.
Tech companies used to have merger fever, now they have splitting fever. Is it a fad thing, or are there other factors at play?
Most tech mergers haven't gone well, and maybe financiers and investors finally got a clue and stopped rewarding merging.
Is there enough data to show the opposite works: that splitting on average increases net profit of the parts?
I'm sick and tired of people telling me not to get sick and tired!
"You are doing it wrong and need expensive consultants to learn to do it right."
You mean, "well played, sir"
In Soviet Russia, seals seal you.
Somalia: small government, small taxes, lotsa freedom. But, the jerks around you will also have lots of freedom.
Only if you observe them being sold.
It was the local boy-scouts who "presented" it to them.
But in general they should have X-rayed it before mounting it. I suppose that may be difficult to pull off in the Soviet Union. An alternative is to photograph it, send the photos to expert carvers, and make and mount a duplicate.
Maybe "accidentally" drop the original so that if you are caught throwing it away, you have an alibi: "we accidentally dropped it, and made a duplicate because we didn't want to offend the boy-scouts."
Jar Jar Bing, oh my stars!
Mariner 8 (failed) was a duplicate orbiter companion to Mariner 9.
Volume of returned data may also be a factor. The Earth antennas may have difficulty absorbing data from two probes at the same time.
I suppose you can put them in opposite orbits to spread out rely times, but it's hard to keep them opposite if you want to orbit at different or changing angles, which is often desired for surveys.
"It looks like you've been in an accident. Would you like to hire a Bing lawyer or a certified Bing plastic surgeon? Press '2' if your mouth doesn't work. Press '3' if '2' is damaged. If your wallet flew out the window, please hang up."
uh, a flopping fish just reformatted your drive
Simple: Jobs lied.
If I could expect "glory", big stock, and/or resume credit, I may have considered such when younger.
I've actually been promised similar things, BUT the owners flaked in the end or the product flopped. I roughly cloned Ebay in 4 weeks once under such pretenses. (I was cross-eyed at the end.)
9 times out of 10 when you are asked to "sell your soul for glory", there's nothing at the end of the tunnel but bulls8t and disappointment. But, the young and restless often like such gambles even if success is unlikely.
I recommend it at least ONCE in your life, before or after you have a family to support. When you get older you then won't kick yourself for not trying when you had the stamina or time. I'm disappointed I never made it big from such gambles, but glad I tried a couple of times.
Only because it's hard to find H1B's on Venus.
Actually, the Phoenix Mars Lander was built in part from duplicate spare parts from the failed Mars Polar Lander, plus parts from a cancelled mission called "Mars 2001 Surveyor". NASA does reuse stuff.
US probes got much more reliable over time.
A big part of the cost is the still the launch vehicle and fuel. It may be that probes are now considered reliable enough that the cost of a duplicate launch is not worth it.
Since the 80's, US probes are roughly 90% successful (excluding annoying non-show-stopper glitches) such that a duplicate launch may not be economical.
Japan may be in a different boat, though. They are still in the learning stage similar to the US in the 60's. Plus, if you duplicate probes, you also duplicate design flaws.
One of the lessons Japan should be learning is to design the probe flexible and with enough spare fuel for contingencies. Their missions seem to not work right on the first try such that being able to try again during the mission could be really helpful. For example, if you design an asteroid sampling mission, allow it to be able to try to grab a sample multiple times, and with feedback sensors to learn from each try.
It seems nations get overzealous with their early missions. For example, one of Russia's early 70's Mars landers had little rover. If they had instead focused on reliability, they may have had the first (undisputed) successful Mars landing. They put in too many bells and whistles.
The US also did such with the Ranger program of the early 60's. They kept failing, and they eventually simplified and stripped every scientific instrument off of the probes except the camera systems. Until you perfect the art, K.I.S.S.
A Brontosaurus fart is equivalent to the exhaust of 500 SUV's ;-)
That's a common claim of conservatives, but it's only a theory. Other countries have put in place forms of "protectionism" without causing more poor, and even do better in that arena than we do.
Plus, most of the basics do NOT come from China: food, water, housing, medical care. Plastic lawn-chairs are not a "necessity".