While I fully expect "cloud computing" to result in the same resounding THUD as did earlier Paradigm Shifts (the network is the computer, etc), I think Old Doc Jobs is trying to take a look over the next hill at where computing for today's non-computer-geek/non-computer-professional/non-power-user computer users will be in five to eight years. He's decided where he thinks that will be, and he's pissing in all the corners of that particular property so that he and his progeny can milk it for all it's worth. It's not so much what the next paradigm will be, but the fact that there WILL be a next paradigm of some sort or other. I expect to be using a PC (Mac, actually) until they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers, but that's on my professional side. As a personal user, I am keeping a close eye on iPad because I think it's got a chance of morphing into something really useful.
People have been calling Jobs a fool and an idiot for years, and he's still standing and still doing some good work. I'd not bet serious money against him.
The space-weather phenomenon that is most likely to damage GPS satellites is spacecraft charging, a build-up of very high voltages within the spacecraft due to differential charging by high-energy particules. These voltage differences can result in sudden discharges, much like a lightning bolt, inside the spacecraft. Problem is that this seems to be more of a problem for satellites in lower orbits than GPS. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be a major problem for GPS, even in a large geomagnetic disturbance such as the one that followed the 1859 flare.
A more subtle impact might be small changes in the GPS orbits due to changes in drag on the satellite by increased local particle density should the shock from the CME push the magnetosphere in far enough to put the GPS satellites outside the magnetosphere and into the solar wind. These changes will result in short-term GPS errors, as the satellites won't be where they are expected to be. This, however, can be fixed fairly quickly by correcting the orbits and the orbit elements from which the expected positions are calculated.
I've been in the business of what's become known as "space weather" since 1972 (yeah, an Old Guy). One thing I've learned in this time is to ignore NASA when it comes to space weather issues. We in the community have been aware of this issue for decades, and it has been brought to the attention of The Decision Makers on many occasions at many levels with both government and commercial organizations. The lack of "leaping into action" has been stultifying, mainly because this disaster has never happened and so the bureaucratic take is that it can be safely ignored (same thinking that won't put a stoplight at an intersection until 10 people have died there).
Recall that NASA is also the source of the lowest of the predictions for the upcoming solar cycle. So, on one hand they say "hey, the sky is going to fall" and on the other "hey, rainshowers at worst". All NASA cares about is publicity. The official organization for making these kinds of predictions is the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (I don't work there, or for them).
Shaky argument "we've already spent X, so that's lost if we don't spend more". The "sunk cost" argument, which is misleading. That money isn't lost, it paid salaries and bought some hardware that might find life in other programs. The question is, does it make sense to continue to pour money into this pot or would that money be better spent elsewhere. Knowing NASA and university operations, I'd suspect there are better places for the money.
The article doesn't say what energy range of cosmic radiation they are concerned about. If only very high energies, these are mostly the non-solar variety of cosmic radiation and the flux of these does maximize during solar minimum conditions (where we are now). In that case, they are testing at the right time. However, if these beasts are sensitive to lower-energy radiation such as that produced by energetic solar flares, levels of this radiation are now at their lowest point in the solar cycle. I've seen this before - test something in space at solar minimum and then be surprised when the production model fails when it is launched into solar maximum conditions.
I'm sorry, but if this is what passes for serious academic computer-science work, close the schools. This all appears to boil down to: quality code (definition left to the reader) is produced by good programmers (can't define, but I know one when I see his/her code) who are given the time to produce quality code. Rushed projects by teams of average-to-crappy programmers results in low-quality code. All the tools and management theories in the world have little impact on this basic fact of life.
My PhD, please?
Many jobs can get done by programming at a higher level than we did "in the good old days." As you say, there's lots of already-coded and tested apps out there. It makes more sense for the kiddies to learn how to use shell-like languages (python, Applescript, the new Apple Automator, etc) to use these building blocks to make something they need.
As you point out, the OS API these days is too complex for someone just learning to write a graphical game such as those we played with in those good old days. Perhaps someone might (or already has) come up with a programming environment that simplifies the API so that a kiddie can write something like Gorilla or Frogger or name-your-favorite with at least the same level of complexity as it was doing these in Basic with peeks, pokes, and all the (then) gory details.
Then there's the issue of getting those kiddies to care about learning to do this. That's a whole different problem than having the tools or toys to do so.
Probably not, since I don't know what that means. The organization was the Space Environment Support Service (SESS), part of the USAF Weather Service (yes, Virgina, the SESS Pool). We were located at the USAF Weather Central in Omaha, NE.
One must take care with this sort of thing. Many years ago I worked for an organization which, among other things, kept track of geomagnetic activity at high latitudes (the ground signature of auroral activity). This was done by analyzing data from a small network of ground-based magnetometers (measures changes in the local magnetic field). Over time, we noticed that once site, locate on an Air Force base in Maine, always showed a disturbance around 2:30 each Friday afternoon. The people who ran the system for us, including the maintenance folks, were weather experts and were clueless about magnetometers, but they were adamant that everything was working fine. We finally discovered what was happening when one of the group was in Maine on vacation. He dropped by the site for a visit on Friday afternoon and found the culprit. The sensor sat out in a large grass-covered field which was mowed using a large, electromagnetically noisy, lawnmower every Friday afternoon about 2:30PM. Just because you have a signal doesn't mean you understand what you have.
Slashdot Mirror
While I fully expect "cloud computing" to result in the same resounding THUD as did earlier Paradigm Shifts (the network is the computer, etc), I think Old Doc Jobs is trying to take a look over the next hill at where computing for today's non-computer-geek/non-computer-professional/non-power-user computer users will be in five to eight years. He's decided where he thinks that will be, and he's pissing in all the corners of that particular property so that he and his progeny can milk it for all it's worth. It's not so much what the next paradigm will be, but the fact that there WILL be a next paradigm of some sort or other. I expect to be using a PC (Mac, actually) until they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers, but that's on my professional side. As a personal user, I am keeping a close eye on iPad because I think it's got a chance of morphing into something really useful. People have been calling Jobs a fool and an idiot for years, and he's still standing and still doing some good work. I'd not bet serious money against him.
The space-weather phenomenon that is most likely to damage GPS satellites is spacecraft charging, a build-up of very high voltages within the spacecraft due to differential charging by high-energy particules. These voltage differences can result in sudden discharges, much like a lightning bolt, inside the spacecraft. Problem is that this seems to be more of a problem for satellites in lower orbits than GPS. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be a major problem for GPS, even in a large geomagnetic disturbance such as the one that followed the 1859 flare.
A more subtle impact might be small changes in the GPS orbits due to changes in drag on the satellite by increased local particle density should the shock from the CME push the magnetosphere in far enough to put the GPS satellites outside the magnetosphere and into the solar wind. These changes will result in short-term GPS errors, as the satellites won't be where they are expected to be. This, however, can be fixed fairly quickly by correcting the orbits and the orbit elements from which the expected positions are calculated.
I've been in the business of what's become known as "space weather" since 1972 (yeah, an Old Guy). One thing I've learned in this time is to ignore NASA when it comes to space weather issues. We in the community have been aware of this issue for decades, and it has been brought to the attention of The Decision Makers on many occasions at many levels with both government and commercial organizations. The lack of "leaping into action" has been stultifying, mainly because this disaster has never happened and so the bureaucratic take is that it can be safely ignored (same thinking that won't put a stoplight at an intersection until 10 people have died there). Recall that NASA is also the source of the lowest of the predictions for the upcoming solar cycle. So, on one hand they say "hey, the sky is going to fall" and on the other "hey, rainshowers at worst". All NASA cares about is publicity. The official organization for making these kinds of predictions is the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (I don't work there, or for them).
Shaky argument "we've already spent X, so that's lost if we don't spend more". The "sunk cost" argument, which is misleading. That money isn't lost, it paid salaries and bought some hardware that might find life in other programs. The question is, does it make sense to continue to pour money into this pot or would that money be better spent elsewhere. Knowing NASA and university operations, I'd suspect there are better places for the money.
The article doesn't say what energy range of cosmic radiation they are concerned about. If only very high energies, these are mostly the non-solar variety of cosmic radiation and the flux of these does maximize during solar minimum conditions (where we are now). In that case, they are testing at the right time. However, if these beasts are sensitive to lower-energy radiation such as that produced by energetic solar flares, levels of this radiation are now at their lowest point in the solar cycle. I've seen this before - test something in space at solar minimum and then be surprised when the production model fails when it is launched into solar maximum conditions.
I'm sorry, but if this is what passes for serious academic computer-science work, close the schools. This all appears to boil down to: quality code (definition left to the reader) is produced by good programmers (can't define, but I know one when I see his/her code) who are given the time to produce quality code. Rushed projects by teams of average-to-crappy programmers results in low-quality code. All the tools and management theories in the world have little impact on this basic fact of life. My PhD, please?
Many jobs can get done by programming at a higher level than we did "in the good old days." As you say, there's lots of already-coded and tested apps out there. It makes more sense for the kiddies to learn how to use shell-like languages (python, Applescript, the new Apple Automator, etc) to use these building blocks to make something they need.
As you point out, the OS API these days is too complex for someone just learning to write a graphical game such as those we played with in those good old days. Perhaps someone might (or already has) come up with a programming environment that simplifies the API so that a kiddie can write something like Gorilla or Frogger or name-your-favorite with at least the same level of complexity as it was doing these in Basic with peeks, pokes, and all the (then) gory details.
Then there's the issue of getting those kiddies to care about learning to do this. That's a whole different problem than having the tools or toys to do so.
Probably not, since I don't know what that means. The organization was the Space Environment Support Service (SESS), part of the USAF Weather Service (yes, Virgina, the SESS Pool). We were located at the USAF Weather Central in Omaha, NE.
One must take care with this sort of thing. Many years ago I worked for an organization which, among other things, kept track of geomagnetic activity at high latitudes (the ground signature of auroral activity). This was done by analyzing data from a small network of ground-based magnetometers (measures changes in the local magnetic field). Over time, we noticed that once site, locate on an Air Force base in Maine, always showed a disturbance around 2:30 each Friday afternoon. The people who ran the system for us, including the maintenance folks, were weather experts and were clueless about magnetometers, but they were adamant that everything was working fine. We finally discovered what was happening when one of the group was in Maine on vacation. He dropped by the site for a visit on Friday afternoon and found the culprit. The sensor sat out in a large grass-covered field which was mowed using a large, electromagnetically noisy, lawnmower every Friday afternoon about 2:30PM. Just because you have a signal doesn't mean you understand what you have.