It's not the elimination of the NASA manned rocket program. It's about the descoping of the poorly conceived and poorly executed NASA manned rocket design and manufacturing program; whose significant purpose was employment in Alabama congressional districts. A private contractor will not decide on the mission goals or the payload. One can have robust manned space program without designing the rockets.
In 1965 NASA had to design and build its own microcomputers. NASA does not do so any more; astronauts use standard laptop computers on the ISS.
"So lemme get this straight. If you believe that the American government is involved in a conspiracy or conspiracies, such as the overwhelming evidence that the official story explaining 9/11 is not the whole story"
There's a huge difference between believing typical governments
a) insert technical backdoors for intelligence collection through commercial companies (of course they do)
b) commit indiscriminate mass murder and terrorism against one's own people, intentionally, including blowing up the nation's own military headquarters. (This is not the same as violently suppressing dissent or suspicious ethnic groups, lots of governments do that).
Besides, if Dick Cheney and the other usual conspiratorial suspects were involved with 9/11 they would have blown up the skyscrapers using bombs, and then blamed it on Saddam. They didn't give a crap about Afghanistan. And they definitely would NOT attack the Pentagon.
It seems it's more "Nero comes from behind and pokes a toothpick into their boron-titanium-tungsten self-healing powered exoskeleton, and turn on their T-800's lawbot swarm aggro mode".
The study results: anti-missile impacted the larger body of the rocket, not directly the warhead, most of the time. Only a direct hit on the warhead with a kinetic kill is sufficient to destroy the warhead.
Other results: the anti-missile system apparently IS able to hit at least the rocket most of the time. That is an important datum.
Conclusion: in an actual war with real suspected incoming nuclear warheads, they will launch small nuclear warheads on the anti-missile systems to ensure that a rocket-body-hit is good enough. This is nearly certainly a capability the agency has explored in secret. It is in secret because explicitly providing this capability is contrary to signed treaty. If there's a real incoming warhead, no registered voters will cavil about the treaty if the interception is successful.
1) get Chinese hardware manufacturers to clone the hardware 2) set up App store. 3) make sure it is [b]very[/b] well optimized for flash video 4) Include Silicone case. Very warm battery. Good for 'reading' in bed. 5) including all the tunneling software built in. Make sure "It just Works" especially in non-Western nations. 6) Start viral rumor, which turns out to be true, about secret "porn mode" switch. 7) Profit!
Google et al already get paid now by their clients.
Network providers already get paid now already by their clients. They're both charging.
This issue is that Networks want to extort more money out of their existing clients and Google et al and Google et al clients, in return for providing nothing positive of value to either customers or content providers (economic rents).
Extortion is the correct word: they want the right to threaten any of the other parties with technical degradation of various forms unless they are paid more money---money to keep things as they are at present.
There are other scummy "business opportunities" this opens up, for instance taking money to substitute B's ad for A's in Google's search results--A pays Google and B pays the networks.
And then the next stage of the pipe will charge Google more money to change it back to the original ad if they outbid B.
The "get a different ISP" argument doesn't work, because the network providers want the right to do any of the above in the middle of the network. (Oh and of course no anti-trust enforcement)
The report really does sound like a bit of sophisticated propaganda to convince Congressmen to fund nifty research mathematics. It is very strangely focused like a review article on niche mathematics and computer science.
The solution the paradox is simple: the USSR really was behind, but in the particular military areas mentioned (ICBMs, spaceflight), it is clear that advanced VLSI is not necessary. The USSR was not so far behind (or at all) in hard engineering like metallurgy, thermodynamics, rocketry etc, all the areas which are absolutely necessary for spaceflight.
Remember that the difference between the West and USSR was in economic efficiency. VLSI was just way too expensive---so Soviets had to make do when the West would use economical, high performing chips. The necessary computers embedded inside weaponry and rockets through 1984 simply didn't need to be that complicated. They usually had to run a simple control loop & switching system, which was designed and simulated off-line by large stationary computers in the lab. And more often in the USSR's case, analytical pencil & paper computations. The USSR had a much stronger applied mathematical understanding of nonlinear dynamics and chaos---in the USSR fluid mechanics wasn't shunted off as a boring part of civil engineering, but stayed with the high-level physics community the whole time. The West started recognizing the importance right about in the mid 1980's.
The deficiency in high performance semiconductors DID, in truth, hurt their military capacity in some areas: those areas where advanced semiconductor technology is essential, and not just an economically effective choice.
Primary examples are anything which involves combined analog/digital operations, for instance CCD imagers, and modern wireless digital communication devices. A critical example: high resolution spy satellites which transmitted the results by radio and not film canister.
For instance: despite great space flight experience, the USSR didn't come remotely close to having a capability in the 1980's like the Global Positioning System, or relatively cheap spread-spectrum communications (almost everything we have now is from original military developments), or fancy infrared imagers and image analysis software embedded in a warhead's targeting system. All those require advanced, embedded, launchable, semiconductor technology---a cloned VAX in a building won't cut it.
After seeing the results of the Gulf War in 1990 a Soviet general was very relieved that they never went to war with the West. The USSR was astonished at the capability of precision bombing from the F-117 et al and the necessary logistics & ground & airborne communication systems supporting such a campaign. Iraq didn't have the capability and certainly training of the USSR but 1990 Iraq had some decent Soviet hardware, which was nearly totally ineffective in combat.
It meant that in a war in Europe NATO could have smashed a Soviet armored assault without nuclear weaponry (, and the USSR strongly underestimated this conventional capability driven by technology.
One lesson is that the technological capabilities of Chinese weaponry today shouldn't be underestimated.
The USA had these sophisticated machines for a long time (decades) though probably without the current level of software.
They were considered critical national security technology because their primary use was milling components for advanced nuclear weaponry. The specific shapes and ability to form these unusual shapes required for the physics unhindered by manufacturing constraints was considered an essential capability.
No doubt these machines illegal to export and probably restricted from commercial use.
Also they had to collect all of the shavings, because they were milling nice stuff like plutonium, uranium, beryllium and high explosives.
"Actually, that's exactly why one should be skeptical: at heart it's just a Diesel engine. Using a Diesel engine with gasoline isn't even a new idea, such engines already exist. So exactly what is the magic bullet there?"
Getting the efficiency of compression ignition engine using gasoline as a fuel, and presumably causing lower emissions.
The magic bullet is having a very high compression ratio (better efficiency) without excess predetonation (which is why you can't use gasoline in current Diesel engines).
"And improving oxidation doesn't do much, unless your engine ejects a large quantity of fuel unburned. What limits the efficiency of either the Otto or Diesel cycles (either theoretical or in actual cars) isn't their failing to burn most of the gasoline. So pre-oxidizing and catalysts to improve oxidation can't even begin to account for the claimed efficiency improvement."
The goal is to alter the timing so that nearly all of the energy released is at the point of maximum compression, and ONLY at the point of maximum compression.
Any other timing will cause loss of efficiency, pollutants, and damage to the engine.
"If you worked at Glorious State Rocket Factory #12 you were not rewarded through better salary or perks if you innovated. "
However, sufficiently brutal Leninist demotivation aversion was quite convincing, if stochastic.
Of course grounded wire mesh wouldn't do much to reduce the very low frequency magnetic fields coming from power lines. I bet he knew that. I also bet he didn't tell his wife that.
By the way, President Palin declared past and present slashdot commenters to be enemy precombatants. SAIC has the contract for wifi in our Protective Custody Containment Areas and they're pretty good. The AT&T camps really suck, they make you buy only their own brain-dead card with no open source drivers.
I know it's just "anecdotal evidence", but here goes.
I purchased a iMac in mid December along with Windows 7. I used Boot Camp, and it had an explicit option for "Windows 7"
My conclusion: TFA is wrong, and Apple delivered Win 7 support on time as promised.
All those neurostimming drug fiends always hog the best tables at my internet provider, doing stupid stuff, reading junk and talking about nothing when they could be recompiling their C compiler.
"There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true"
In other words: an academic writes a negative review about somebody else's paper and sends it in to the editor! Shock me Amadeus! Wasn't academia supposed to be all about 110% supportive people, there are no bad papers, everybody's computation is right in its own special way? Don't tell me it ain't so!
Quoting: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil"
And what if said reviewer honestly thinks that the other paper is wrong and bullshit? Guess what: sometimes paper submissions ARE wrong and bullshit!
And also, sometimes negative reviewers do have a stick up their rear---the editors of the journals have seen this before, many many many many times. They can sniff this out, and when they think the negative review isn't really valid they will publish the paper nonetheless.
This supposed mighty "power to suppress" literally consists of writing a reply to the editor of a journal---unpaid labor---with a summary rating and technical evaluation. That's it.
Compare this to the power wielded by those who have large financial interests in actually obfuscating pretty clear scientific results.
[i]They have no explanation for why global temperature has not increased during the last ten years. They are just as astonished by the exceptionally cold, wet weather they see outside their window as everyone else.[/i]
No, actual scientists are not astonished because the magnitude of natural variability per year is significant, and the rest of the physics of the planet doesn't take a nap.
"I'm sorry but you didn't understand my post at all, I'm saying beyond a certain point, degree's are about status and NOT what you are capable of."
I understood that fine.
It might be somewhat true at the lower levels but I find that at the highest levels it is impossible to get a degree without a substantial level of achievement and capability. I agree that degrees are not only about what you are capable of doing, but what you actually did. That's not "social status" but willingness to work.
Lets calibrate your experience. Have you, or people that you know, been admitted to, attend, or have attended PhD programs in technical subjects in top 25 universities?
There's also a large difference between, say, the typical "college graduate" and good graduate schools too.
And in grad school there's the difference between a terminal masters and somebody who either did---or could have done---the PhD program. Past 1st year, graduate school is entirely different from undergraduate learning. The textbooks aren't the maximum to be known, they are the base of exploration. Grad students learn 95% by their own working and experience embedded in an environment (one hopes) of maximum intelligence and achievement.
It's really a game of social status, education does NOT ensure someone is smarter or more skilled, it only ensures that, that person had the persistance or was a very good cheater.
And who exactly were they cheating off of? You think everybody in Caltech is cheating off of the guy going to DeVry?
Persistance and skill are often confused, the education system is really about handing out status to attempt to justify who gets jobs over who doesn't merit be damned. Anyone who believes education is not mostly about social status is not very bright.
Somebody who believes educational success is all about social status in technical subjects is probably somebody who was lazy and prefers to say stuff like "Persistance and skill are often confused."
In the real world, persistence multiplied by skill gets stuff done. And yes those students who had the social maturity to recognize that even though they may be smart they also have to put in their labor too are the ones who get ahead. As they should.
What level education are you thinking about anyway? My experience is that the level of intelligence and skill at the top level universities is truly very high. Moreover, people from that environment tend to be (mostly) pretty well adjusted and agreeable, especially since they've had enough experience with other very smart people that they realize they're no longer the only sharp fork in the drawer by any means. People who may have been bright but always surrounded by mediocrities can have a pretty arrogant attitude, like "the education system is really about handing out status to attempt to justify who gets jobs over who doesn't merit be damned".
I've now been on the other side interviewing for open positions in my company. In my group we typically take MS and PhD graduates in serious quantitative subjects from major research universities---that works quite well. However I have done some interviews with others who didn't fit that, but tried to convince us that they had the get-it-done-skill. It became apparent quite quickly that they didn't have the fundamental insight and intelligence that we want.
"The computer did exactly as instructed, it's just that the pilot's (unintentionally given) instructions were stupid, and the fact that it took the pilot over 3 minutes to realize just how stupid he had been"
It is most unequivocally a major software design error when more desperate attempts by the autopilot to get the plane to gain height, which eventually resulted in a total loss of lift for the plane happens.
All cruise controls on cars shut off when you tap the brakes.
Recently four people died in San Diego, including the highway patrol officer driving. A late model Lexus got a stuck accelerator input somehow and crashed at 120+ MPH. There was no key, it was a pushbutton. (and the transmission was some newfangled thing that didn't have a conventional 'neutral' postition). The driver was borrowing the car and didn't know to use the entirely unintuitive "hold for three seconds" to turn off engine. The engine was at full open throttle and being a potent modern Lexus, it totally overwhelmed the brakes (witnesses said that the brake discs were glowing red hot and the brake pads were on fire). At high RPMs the brake vacuum goes down.
The software design error is of course not shutting down the fuel injectors in a "full brake" situation.
The problem is not just Ballmer. The problem is that Microsoft wasn't broken up. Ballmer is the symptom.
After the antitrust ruling was emasculated, Bill Gates should have said "OK, we won. Now we're going to break Microsoft up anyway. That's the only way to prevent us from turning into exactly what we despised when we founded the company: IBM."
They have many smart people working there but they are all Thralls, in service to the continued maintenance of the Windows Empire, whose first commandment is Thou Shalt Not Think Different.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the elimination of the NASA manned rocket program. It's about the descoping of the poorly conceived and poorly executed NASA manned rocket design and manufacturing program; whose significant purpose was employment in Alabama congressional districts. A private contractor will not decide on the mission goals or the payload. One can have robust manned space program without designing the rockets.
In 1965 NASA had to design and build its own microcomputers. NASA does not do so any more; astronauts use standard laptop computers on the ISS.
The two words which truly sum up the current problem with Mcrosoft are Steve and Ballmer.
"The biggest problem with Microsoft is that it doesn't have any taste" -- Steve Jobs, 1995.
"So lemme get this straight. If you believe that the American government is involved in a conspiracy or conspiracies, such as the overwhelming evidence that the official story explaining 9/11 is not the whole story"
There's a huge difference between believing typical governments
a) insert technical backdoors for intelligence collection through commercial companies (of course they do)
b) commit indiscriminate mass murder and terrorism against one's own people, intentionally, including blowing up the nation's own military headquarters. (This is not the same as violently suppressing dissent or suspicious ethnic groups, lots of governments do that).
Besides, if Dick Cheney and the other usual conspiratorial suspects were involved with 9/11 they would have blown up the skyscrapers using bombs, and then blamed it on Saddam. They didn't give a crap about Afghanistan. And they definitely would NOT attack the Pentagon.
It seems it's more "Nero comes from behind and pokes a toothpick into their boron-titanium-tungsten self-healing powered exoskeleton, and turn on their T-800's lawbot swarm aggro mode".
The study results: anti-missile impacted the larger body of the rocket, not directly the warhead, most of the time. Only a direct hit on the warhead with a kinetic kill is sufficient to destroy the warhead.
Other results: the anti-missile system apparently IS able to hit at least the rocket most of the time. That is an important datum.
Conclusion: in an actual war with real suspected incoming nuclear warheads, they will launch small nuclear warheads on the anti-missile systems to ensure that a rocket-body-hit is good enough. This is nearly certainly a capability the agency has explored in secret. It is in secret because explicitly providing this capability is contrary to signed treaty. If there's a real incoming warhead, no registered voters will cavil about the treaty if the interception is successful.
1) get Chinese hardware manufacturers to clone the hardware
2) set up App store.
3) make sure it is [b]very[/b] well optimized for flash video
4) Include Silicone case. Very warm battery. Good for 'reading' in bed.
5) including all the tunneling software built in. Make sure "It just Works" especially in non-Western nations.
6) Start viral rumor, which turns out to be true, about secret "porn mode" switch.
7) Profit!
Google et al already get paid now by their clients.
Network providers already get paid now already by their clients. They're both charging.
This issue is that Networks want to extort more money out of their existing clients and Google et al and Google et al clients, in return for providing nothing positive of value to either customers or content providers (economic rents).
Extortion is the correct word: they want the right to threaten any of the other parties with technical degradation of various forms unless they are paid more money---money to keep things as they are at present.
There are other scummy "business opportunities" this opens up, for instance taking money to substitute B's ad for A's in Google's search results--A pays Google and B pays the networks.
And then the next stage of the pipe will charge Google more money to change it back to the original ad if they outbid B.
The "get a different ISP" argument doesn't work, because the network providers want the right to do any of the above in the middle of the network. (Oh and of course no anti-trust enforcement)
Those well-known geniuses have figured it out in between the hair salon and the notary. It's called a keybox. http://www.google.com/products?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=keybox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=PEjjS5f_AoSKlwfe_a2SAg&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CEMQrQQwAg
Actually, they're your customer's devices. You get to keep their money.
It's amazing.
Add free-market competition, and prices go up!
That's Jedi-master-level RDF skill.
The report really does sound like a bit of sophisticated propaganda to convince Congressmen to fund nifty research mathematics. It is very strangely focused like a review article on niche mathematics and computer science.
The solution the paradox is simple: the USSR really was behind, but in the particular military areas mentioned (ICBMs, spaceflight), it is clear that advanced VLSI is not necessary. The USSR was not so far behind (or at all) in hard engineering like metallurgy, thermodynamics, rocketry etc, all the areas which are absolutely necessary for spaceflight.
Remember that the difference between the West and USSR was in economic efficiency. VLSI was just way too expensive---so Soviets had to make do when the West would use economical, high performing chips. The necessary computers embedded inside weaponry and rockets through 1984 simply didn't need to be that complicated. They usually had to run a simple control loop & switching system, which was designed and simulated off-line by large stationary computers in the lab. And more often in the USSR's case, analytical pencil & paper computations. The USSR had a much stronger applied mathematical understanding of nonlinear dynamics and chaos---in the USSR fluid mechanics wasn't shunted off as a boring part of civil engineering, but stayed with the high-level physics community the whole time. The West started recognizing the importance right about in the mid 1980's.
The deficiency in high performance semiconductors DID, in truth, hurt their military capacity in some areas: those areas where advanced semiconductor technology is essential, and not just an economically effective choice.
Primary examples are anything which involves combined analog/digital operations, for instance CCD imagers, and modern wireless digital communication devices. A critical example: high resolution spy satellites which transmitted the results by radio and not film canister.
For instance: despite great space flight experience, the USSR didn't come remotely close to having a capability in the 1980's like the Global Positioning System, or relatively cheap spread-spectrum communications (almost everything we have now is from original military developments), or fancy infrared imagers and image analysis software embedded in a warhead's targeting system. All those require advanced, embedded, launchable, semiconductor technology---a cloned VAX in a building won't cut it.
After seeing the results of the Gulf War in 1990 a Soviet general was very relieved that they never went to war with the West. The USSR was astonished at the capability of precision bombing from the F-117 et al and the necessary logistics & ground & airborne communication systems supporting such a campaign. Iraq didn't have the capability and certainly training of the USSR but 1990 Iraq had some decent Soviet hardware, which was nearly totally ineffective in combat.
It meant that in a war in Europe NATO could have smashed a Soviet armored assault without nuclear weaponry (, and the USSR strongly underestimated this conventional capability driven by technology.
One lesson is that the technological capabilities of Chinese weaponry today shouldn't be underestimated.
The USA had these sophisticated machines for a long time (decades) though probably without the current level of software.
They were considered critical national security technology because their primary use was milling components for advanced nuclear weaponry. The specific shapes and ability to form these unusual shapes required for the physics unhindered by manufacturing constraints was considered an essential capability.
No doubt these machines illegal to export and probably restricted from commercial use.
Also they had to collect all of the shavings, because they were milling nice stuff like plutonium, uranium, beryllium and high explosives.
"Actually, that's exactly why one should be skeptical: at heart it's just a Diesel engine. Using a Diesel engine with gasoline isn't even a new idea, such engines already exist. So exactly what is the magic bullet there?"
Getting the efficiency of compression ignition engine using gasoline as a fuel, and presumably causing lower emissions.
The magic bullet is having a very high compression ratio (better efficiency) without excess predetonation (which is why you can't use gasoline in current Diesel engines).
"And improving oxidation doesn't do much, unless your engine ejects a large quantity of fuel unburned. What limits the efficiency of either the Otto or Diesel cycles (either theoretical or in actual cars) isn't their failing to burn most of the gasoline. So pre-oxidizing and catalysts to improve oxidation can't even begin to account for the claimed efficiency improvement."
The goal is to alter the timing so that nearly all of the energy released is at the point of maximum compression, and ONLY at the point of maximum compression.
Any other timing will cause loss of efficiency, pollutants, and damage to the engine.
"If you worked at Glorious State Rocket Factory #12 you were not rewarded through better salary or perks if you innovated. " However, sufficiently brutal Leninist demotivation aversion was quite convincing, if stochastic.
Of course grounded wire mesh wouldn't do much to reduce the very low frequency magnetic fields coming from power lines. I bet he knew that. I also bet he didn't tell his wife that.
By the way, President Palin declared past and present slashdot commenters to be enemy precombatants. SAIC has the contract for wifi in our Protective Custody Containment Areas and they're pretty good. The AT&T camps really suck, they make you buy only their own brain-dead card with no open source drivers.
I know it's just "anecdotal evidence", but here goes. I purchased a iMac in mid December along with Windows 7. I used Boot Camp, and it had an explicit option for "Windows 7" My conclusion: TFA is wrong, and Apple delivered Win 7 support on time as promised.
All those neurostimming drug fiends always hog the best tables at my internet provider, doing stupid stuff, reading junk and talking about nothing when they could be recompiling their C compiler.
"There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true"
In other words: an academic writes a negative review about somebody else's paper and sends it in to the editor! Shock me Amadeus! Wasn't academia supposed to be all about 110% supportive people, there are no bad papers, everybody's computation is right in its own special way? Don't tell me it ain't so!
Quoting: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil"
And what if said reviewer honestly thinks that the other paper is wrong and bullshit? Guess what: sometimes paper submissions ARE wrong and bullshit!
And also, sometimes negative reviewers do have a stick up their rear---the editors of the journals have seen this before, many many many many times. They can sniff this out, and when they think the negative review isn't really valid they will publish the paper nonetheless.
This supposed mighty "power to suppress" literally consists of writing a reply to the editor of a journal---unpaid labor---with a summary rating and technical evaluation. That's it.
Compare this to the power wielded by those who have large financial interests in actually obfuscating pretty clear scientific results.
[i]They have no explanation for why global temperature has not increased during the last ten years. They are just as astonished by the exceptionally cold, wet weather they see outside their window as everyone else.[/i]
No, actual scientists are not astonished because the magnitude of natural variability per year is significant, and the rest of the physics of the planet doesn't take a nap.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Do the above show something particularly odd or incompatible with mainstream climatological opinion in the last 10 years?
No.
"I'm sorry but you didn't understand my post at all, I'm saying beyond a certain point, degree's are about status and NOT what you are capable of."
I understood that fine.
It might be somewhat true at the lower levels but I find that at the highest levels it is impossible to get a degree without a substantial level of achievement and capability. I agree that degrees are not only about what you are capable of doing, but what you actually did. That's not "social status" but willingness to work.
Lets calibrate your experience. Have you, or people that you know, been admitted to, attend, or have attended PhD programs in technical subjects in top 25 universities?
There's also a large difference between, say, the typical "college graduate" and good graduate schools too.
And in grad school there's the difference between a terminal masters and somebody who either did---or could have done---the PhD program. Past 1st year, graduate school is entirely different from undergraduate learning. The textbooks aren't the maximum to be known, they are the base of exploration. Grad students learn 95% by their own working and experience embedded in an environment (one hopes) of maximum intelligence and achievement.
It's really a game of social status, education does NOT ensure someone is smarter or more skilled, it only ensures that, that person had the persistance or was a very good cheater.
And who exactly were they cheating off of? You think everybody in Caltech is cheating off of the guy going to DeVry?
Persistance and skill are often confused, the education system is really about handing out status to attempt to justify who gets jobs over who doesn't merit be damned. Anyone who believes education is not mostly about social status is not very bright.
Somebody who believes educational success is all about social status in technical subjects is probably somebody who was lazy and prefers to say stuff like "Persistance and skill are often confused."
In the real world, persistence multiplied by skill gets stuff done. And yes those students who had the social maturity to recognize that even though they may be smart they also have to put in their labor too are the ones who get ahead. As they should.
What level education are you thinking about anyway? My experience is that the level of intelligence and skill at the top level universities is truly very high. Moreover, people from that environment tend to be (mostly) pretty well adjusted and agreeable, especially since they've had enough experience with other very smart people that they realize they're no longer the only sharp fork in the drawer by any means. People who may have been bright but always surrounded by mediocrities can have a pretty arrogant attitude, like "the education system is really about handing out status to attempt to justify who gets jobs over who doesn't merit be damned".
I've now been on the other side interviewing for open positions in my company. In my group we typically take MS and PhD graduates in serious quantitative subjects from major research universities---that works quite well. However I have done some interviews with others who didn't fit that, but tried to convince us that they had the get-it-done-skill. It became apparent quite quickly that they didn't have the fundamental insight and intelligence that we want.
"The computer did exactly as instructed, it's just that the pilot's (unintentionally given) instructions were stupid, and the fact that it took the pilot over 3 minutes to realize just how stupid he had been"
It is most unequivocally a major software design error when more desperate attempts by the autopilot to get the plane to gain height, which eventually resulted in a total loss of lift for the plane happens.
All cruise controls on cars shut off when you tap the brakes.
Recently four people died in San Diego, including the highway patrol officer driving. A late model Lexus got a stuck accelerator input somehow and crashed at 120+ MPH. There was no key, it was a pushbutton. (and the transmission was some newfangled thing that didn't have a conventional 'neutral' postition). The driver was borrowing the car and didn't know to use the entirely unintuitive "hold for three seconds" to turn off engine. The engine was at full open throttle and being a potent modern Lexus, it totally overwhelmed the brakes (witnesses said that the brake discs were glowing red hot and the brake pads were on fire). At high RPMs the brake vacuum goes down.
The software design error is of course not shutting down the fuel injectors in a "full brake" situation.
The original article is too timid.
The problem is not just Ballmer. The problem is that Microsoft wasn't broken up. Ballmer is the symptom.
After the antitrust ruling was emasculated, Bill Gates should have said "OK, we won. Now we're going to break Microsoft up anyway. That's the only way to prevent us from turning into exactly what we despised when we founded the company: IBM."
They have many smart people working there but they are all Thralls, in service to the continued maintenance of the Windows Empire, whose first commandment is Thou Shalt Not Think Different.