There's a tricky trade-off at play. To make a system flexible, you generally have to make it more abstract: more layers of indirection, more "switches and dials", and more many-to-many relationships.
But abstraction confuses many of the maintenance staff (typically power users and lessor tech admins). For example, hierarchies are much easier for most to grasp over set theory, but set theory is ultimately more flexible. You can potentially hide sets behind a hierarchy if not using sets, but it's hard to hide the set-oriented infrastructure entirely, including the manuals (doc). Plus, the hiding costs more to implement, making the product more expensive, especially if it has many feature-hide config settings. That's a lot of config combo's for the vendor to test well.
An architecture that does what it needs to and only what it needs to at a given time is usually easier for staff to absorb. However, it also limits future flexibility. I've yet to see a magic escape from this trade-off pair.
A doctor inflating costs to recover more wasn't unusual. The codes make it easier to sniff out fraud.
I wonder if they did a cost/benefit analysis of the cost of insurance fraud versus the cost of detailed encoding.
Also, I wonder if there's not a way to phase it in gradually, one limb at a time or something, or only patent's with ID numbers that end in 3 and 7, or the like. One-Big-On-Switch launches are disasters in the waiting.
It was far too expensive to practically manufacture in the day. The prize authors should have included a clause to limit the manufacturing expense, but they didn't think of it at the time, and were surprised. But, it was not an open society, and monarchies can change the rules on a whim.
I find their are generally two kinds of conservatives:
1) Those who believe trickle-down actually works and that if you "deregulate" the 1%, wealth will flow down to the middle and poor.
2) Those okay with heavy inequality and are basically social-darwinists (dog-eat-dog) in order to "keep the human species strong" by letting the uncompetitive die.
Most, but not all evangelicals fit into #1, as #2 is not very compatible with Jesus's teachings. Ayn Rand fans tend to fit into #2.
My view is that #1 is factually wrong in the modern world, and that society changes too fast for #2 to be viable: today's most valued skill may not be tomorrow's.
LibreOffice has many bugs. But unlike MS, who won't listen to your bug reports, LibreOffice is very responsive in telling...[you're using it wrong].
Sometimes negative feedback is better than no feedback. At least you get the sense there is a human on the other side that is aware you are a user and don't like something, even if they tell you "you are existing wrong", S. Jobs style.
If the laws are complex and subject to interpretation, which they appear to be in this case, then YES, those with the deepest pockets can afford the best lawyers to navigate the legal spaghetti.
I'm not sure of an easy fix, however, other than maybe taxing the rich heavily. Is somebody "evil" just because they can afford better lawyers than you and I?
You can argue that wealth has made the Clinton's callous such that they dance at the edge of the law. But most got rich by doing that. Bill Gates etc. didn't get rich by playing nice and safe. They danced on the edge. Truly honest politicians rarely get very far, because they get trampled by the more aggressive who are not afraid of the edge.
Lotus 1-2-3 turned lots of accountants into programmers. Basically it used the menu keyboard patterns as commands (mostly pre-mouse days) so that one pretty much just made a list of keyboard sequences they already knew as a "program". Add an IF function and Go-to cell coordinates, and you have a Turing Complete language.
It was the closest we actually ever came to "programming for the masses". (Of course, it was spaghetti code only its mother could love.)
Excel's programming language is awkward even for programmers.
Yes, but, even a tightly focused laser experiences some spreading of the beam over distance
SETI has talked about looking for occasional brief flashes of lasers that just happen to be aimed our way. Unlike radio waves, lasers could allow us to listen in on civilizations many galaxies away.
Your argument seems to be "IF they did things right, the accident wouldn't happen". But the anti-nuclear groups point out that humans historically fuck things up such that relying on the existence of rational behavior is a mistake.
That being said, ALL energy sources have downsides and risks. Nuclear power risk/harm is not necessarily greater than the alternatives. Thus, "mix it up" seems the more rational approach as no one mistake or side-effect dominates, and they each work better under different conditions. But, energy generation has consequences, period.
In practice, a Mars dust storm could damage the vehicle and space suit, or at least life support systems on it, enough to cause roughly equivalent problems by getting inside the equipment, damaging bearings, clogging vents and filters, and so forth.
Thus, the specific events shown are unrealistic, but the general idea that dust storms can create crisis is not.
(By some estimates, the soil may even be poisonous to humans.)
While a real Mars dust storm my not be as visually dramatic as say an Earth hurricane, it could certainly gum up a lot of equipment as dust could get into every nook and cranny.
Being the equipment has to be kept light for space transport, it would probably be engineered for a "typical" dust storm, but not for a higher end one. It's similar to how Earth city infrastructure will target a "100 year storm" (or flood or earthquake), meaning that it's designed so that on average it will be 100 years before a storm big enough to overwhelm the infrastructure would happen.
Cities don't engineer for the biggest possible storm because that would be very expensive. They look at the weather history and target handling "pretty big" but not "biggest possible". It's probably same with space equipment.
Similarly, the Apollo ships were designed for medium-sized solar storms, but if there happened to be a really big solar burst, the kind that may happen say once every 100 years, the Apollo astronauts would be doomed, or at least have their life span severely shortened.
Thus, the impact of a freak Mars dust storm could be huge in terms of functional damage, even if it may not "look" very menacing at the time, because it exceeds the design thresholds of the equipment.
But when you are telling a story on screen, it's hard to illustrate dust damage to equipment in a dramatic or "satisfying" way. Thus, things blowing over and smashing and tearing gives visual teeth to the damage.
Based on my experience with slimebag orgs and managers, it may have gone something like this:
A manager(s) asks for a software switch to deactivate the "clean" mode and also detect when smog testing is being done "in order to study and track resources devoted to environmental issues and make sure we understand and comply with the smog testing procedures."
Then a personal visit happens where key manager(s) ask the top-ranking technician to leave the bypass-on-test feature "on" in production. No paper trail. Experienced slimebags don't put such commands into writing.
When the IT lead later reveals "Executive X told me to in person", there's no written trail. It's one person's word against another's.
Sure, the IT lead is probably suspicious of the request, but when the big bosses tell you to do something, it's comply or hit the road.
I was once asked to cheat a client over database scalability. It was shortly after the dot-com crash, and knowing the market was really tight in Calif. and having a young family, it was a really difficult situation to be in. I won't go into the details here, but I was sick to my stomach over it. The experience made me more progressive.
I can't believe people eat puke flavored jelly beans. I didn't believe the rumor until I visited their showroom/store. Baffle. They also have poop flavored.
I wonder if it was discovered by accident? Never mind, I'll leave that trivia in the Goatse TMI lock-box.
Slashdot Mirror
and there's no slash in www.slashdot.org
There's a tricky trade-off at play. To make a system flexible, you generally have to make it more abstract: more layers of indirection, more "switches and dials", and more many-to-many relationships.
But abstraction confuses many of the maintenance staff (typically power users and lessor tech admins). For example, hierarchies are much easier for most to grasp over set theory, but set theory is ultimately more flexible. You can potentially hide sets behind a hierarchy if not using sets, but it's hard to hide the set-oriented infrastructure entirely, including the manuals (doc). Plus, the hiding costs more to implement, making the product more expensive, especially if it has many feature-hide config settings. That's a lot of config combo's for the vendor to test well.
An architecture that does what it needs to and only what it needs to at a given time is usually easier for staff to absorb. However, it also limits future flexibility. I've yet to see a magic escape from this trade-off pair.
I wonder if they did a cost/benefit analysis of the cost of insurance fraud versus the cost of detailed encoding.
Also, I wonder if there's not a way to phase it in gradually, one limb at a time or something, or only patent's with ID numbers that end in 3 and 7, or the like. One-Big-On-Switch launches are disasters in the waiting.
It was far too expensive to practically manufacture in the day. The prize authors should have included a clause to limit the manufacturing expense, but they didn't think of it at the time, and were surprised. But, it was not an open society, and monarchies can change the rules on a whim.
I find their are generally two kinds of conservatives:
1) Those who believe trickle-down actually works and that if you "deregulate" the 1%, wealth will flow down to the middle and poor.
2) Those okay with heavy inequality and are basically social-darwinists (dog-eat-dog) in order to "keep the human species strong" by letting the uncompetitive die.
Most, but not all evangelicals fit into #1, as #2 is not very compatible with Jesus's teachings. Ayn Rand fans tend to fit into #2.
My view is that #1 is factually wrong in the modern world, and that society changes too fast for #2 to be viable: today's most valued skill may not be tomorrow's.
The editors are robots. They bleep up often, but are much cheaper than you.
Sometimes negative feedback is better than no feedback. At least you get the sense there is a human on the other side that is aware you are a user and don't like something, even if they tell you "you are existing wrong", S. Jobs style.
The gov't server was NOT designed for classified info EITHER. There's no evidence it was more secure than her home server.
As far as your "tried to get" claim, please show some evidence.
(At least her home server didn't die like the office one did.)
If the laws are complex and subject to interpretation, which they appear to be in this case, then YES, those with the deepest pockets can afford the best lawyers to navigate the legal spaghetti.
I'm not sure of an easy fix, however, other than maybe taxing the rich heavily. Is somebody "evil" just because they can afford better lawyers than you and I?
You can argue that wealth has made the Clinton's callous such that they dance at the edge of the law. But most got rich by doing that. Bill Gates etc. didn't get rich by playing nice and safe. They danced on the edge. Truly honest politicians rarely get very far, because they get trampled by the more aggressive who are not afraid of the edge.
I also failed when I tried to convert phone numbers into dates. Rejection sucks.
Lotus 1-2-3 turned lots of accountants into programmers. Basically it used the menu keyboard patterns as commands (mostly pre-mouse days) so that one pretty much just made a list of keyboard sequences they already knew as a "program". Add an IF function and Go-to cell coordinates, and you have a Turing Complete language.
It was the closest we actually ever came to "programming for the masses". (Of course, it was spaghetti code only its mother could love.)
Excel's programming language is awkward even for programmers.
SETI has talked about looking for occasional brief flashes of lasers that just happen to be aimed our way. Unlike radio waves, lasers could allow us to listen in on civilizations many galaxies away.
Sure, the Mafia will have ID numbers for all their cement galoshes.
When the aliens find out they don't work, they'll get pissed and annihilate us for the hell of it.
I too had just read the mind-control-shark headline nearby and for a split second mixed the two stories, picturing a walking shark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your argument seems to be "IF they did things right, the accident wouldn't happen". But the anti-nuclear groups point out that humans historically fuck things up such that relying on the existence of rational behavior is a mistake.
That being said, ALL energy sources have downsides and risks. Nuclear power risk/harm is not necessarily greater than the alternatives. Thus, "mix it up" seems the more rational approach as no one mistake or side-effect dominates, and they each work better under different conditions. But, energy generation has consequences, period.
You'll have to wait until version 2.0
If you eat a lot of Chex Mix, your movements will look like hashtags.
Subject ID: 487042-2386
Handle: Tablizer
Classification: Out-of-shape middle-aged pale balding unattractive male
In practice, a Mars dust storm could damage the vehicle and space suit, or at least life support systems on it, enough to cause roughly equivalent problems by getting inside the equipment, damaging bearings, clogging vents and filters, and so forth.
Thus, the specific events shown are unrealistic, but the general idea that dust storms can create crisis is not.
(By some estimates, the soil may even be poisonous to humans.)
While a real Mars dust storm my not be as visually dramatic as say an Earth hurricane, it could certainly gum up a lot of equipment as dust could get into every nook and cranny.
Being the equipment has to be kept light for space transport, it would probably be engineered for a "typical" dust storm, but not for a higher end one. It's similar to how Earth city infrastructure will target a "100 year storm" (or flood or earthquake), meaning that it's designed so that on average it will be 100 years before a storm big enough to overwhelm the infrastructure would happen.
Cities don't engineer for the biggest possible storm because that would be very expensive. They look at the weather history and target handling "pretty big" but not "biggest possible". It's probably same with space equipment.
Similarly, the Apollo ships were designed for medium-sized solar storms, but if there happened to be a really big solar burst, the kind that may happen say once every 100 years, the Apollo astronauts would be doomed, or at least have their life span severely shortened.
Thus, the impact of a freak Mars dust storm could be huge in terms of functional damage, even if it may not "look" very menacing at the time, because it exceeds the design thresholds of the equipment.
But when you are telling a story on screen, it's hard to illustrate dust damage to equipment in a dramatic or "satisfying" way. Thus, things blowing over and smashing and tearing gives visual teeth to the damage.
Hold on, when he walked out, he got into a Delorean.
Based on my experience with slimebag orgs and managers, it may have gone something like this:
A manager(s) asks for a software switch to deactivate the "clean" mode and also detect when smog testing is being done "in order to study and track resources devoted to environmental issues and make sure we understand and comply with the smog testing procedures."
Then a personal visit happens where key manager(s) ask the top-ranking technician to leave the bypass-on-test feature "on" in production. No paper trail. Experienced slimebags don't put such commands into writing.
When the IT lead later reveals "Executive X told me to in person", there's no written trail. It's one person's word against another's.
Sure, the IT lead is probably suspicious of the request, but when the big bosses tell you to do something, it's comply or hit the road.
I was once asked to cheat a client over database scalability. It was shortly after the dot-com crash, and knowing the market was really tight in Calif. and having a young family, it was a really difficult situation to be in. I won't go into the details here, but I was sick to my stomach over it. The experience made me more progressive.
That approach appears to have failed in this case:
http://www.useducationtv.com/u...
I can't believe people eat puke flavored jelly beans. I didn't believe the rumor until I visited their showroom/store. Baffle. They also have poop flavored.
I wonder if it was discovered by accident? Never mind, I'll leave that trivia in the Goatse TMI lock-box.