Don't waste your time reading the article.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| zentrader Sep 20, 2010 5:00 PM EDT |
No the article wasn't satire. The author apparently feels that we should have things like self-driving cars by now and blames the Baby-Boomers for it. In fairness to the 'boomers, someone should point out that they were more concerned about keeping the planet livable, and not concerned about self-driving cars. The World War II generation rebuilt their respective countries after the war, but with no regard for the environment. There were no limitations on waste dumped into the air, water, or land. Someone had to clean up the accumulated mess. Hopefully that legacy continues today and we will come up with a way to power the planet without burning all of the fossil fuels. Or polluting the Gulf. Yes at the expense of the self-driving car. |
| ComputerBob Sep 20, 2010 5:15 PM EDT |
Apparently, the author is a member of the Entitled Whiner generation. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 20, 2010 5:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:Apparently, the author is a member of the Entitled Whiner generation.So just tell me where to insert the tube to power those self driving cars with the heated air given off by these key pounders. YBT |
| kenholmz Sep 20, 2010 6:29 PM EDT |
The author somewhat demeaningly states that astronauts will still be micturating in their spacesuits in 2020 A.D. It is preferable to micturating into the wind as the author does. This is not to deny progress that has been or may yet be made in this world. In the end there is a price to be paid for progress, just as there is a price to be paid for not progressing. Interestingly, the author fails to even consider the early years of Unix (UNIX). I like Linus and I like Linux. He never claimed to start out cold. |
| tracyanne Sep 20, 2010 8:45 PM EDT |
The article is rather short and sweet, it's basically a personal review (or add, if you like) of his book 'After the Software Wars".Quoting:If the WW II generation was The Greatest Generation, the baby boomers were The Worst. My former boss Bill Gates is a baby boomer. While he has the potential to do a lot for the world by giving away his money to other people, after studying Wikipedia and Linux, I see that the proprietary development model he adopted has greatly stifled the progress of technology his generation should have provided to us. I start a book with the statement that we should already have cars that drive us around as we have had video cameras and powerful computers for decades. The reason we don’t have robot-driven cars is that proprietary software became the dominant model: He discusses the effects of Proprietary Software and how it has stifled innovation. The bloke is an ex Microsoft employee, turned Free Software advocate. It's interesting I was reading about a car that drives itself only the other day, it has 3 Linux computers that control it, and the developers are going to have it drive itself from China to Europe more or less following the silk road, while they follow and film the journey. |
| hkwint Sep 21, 2010 9:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:So just tell me where to insert the tube to power those self driving car Another fault of the baby-boomers: Their unwillingness and failed attempts to create a perpetuum mobile, besides the other failed "handheld cold fusion" attempt of course. My generation Y can't be blamed, we weren't alive when these attempts failed! |
| hkwint Sep 21, 2010 9:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:So just tell me where to insert the tube to power those self driving car Another fault of the baby-boomers: Their unwillingness and failed attempts to create a perpetuum mobile, besides the other failed "handheld cold fusion" attempt of course. My generation Y can't be blamed, we weren't alive when these attempts failed! We should add the only self driving cars on earth are competing in a match in the US funded by DARPA, the number one baby-boomers research club. Perfect proof the baby boomers are withholding the technology of self driving cars from us! |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 21, 2010 10:38 AM EDT |
Hans, If you have driven much around the states and bothered looking at your rear view mirror and observing the supposed operator of those vehicles you would not be as misguided. Too many vehicles here are self driven already. I assert this is true seeing too many engrossed in cell phone conversations without paying any attention to traffic. Moreover, the vehicle stops at the last instant to avoid a collision by some remote intelligence, because the supposed driver is otherwise engrossed with other issues. Considering the content of most overheard vapid mobile phone conversations there is a decided lack of sentience visible by the users of such devices. Therefore, what ever intelligence controlling many vehicles on U.S. roads it must be artificial, because from observation it is totally lacking from the titular driver occupying the seat, but not the function. The same holds for those seen to be continually adjusting their in-car stereo systems, because whether viewing from behind or through the mirror, there is no occupant of the driver's seat. Thus, the designated driver is too busy with other issues to be considered in active control of their vehicles. So by actual observation I have seen self driving cars on many major highways in the States. Thus, while Europe may still be deprived of such advanced technology it seems operative on many roads within this nation state. YBT |
| kenholmz Sep 21, 2010 9:57 PM EDT |
Look on the bright side. The Y generation will grow old and still have someone else to blame for their failures. |
| keithcu Sep 22, 2010 3:56 AM EDT |
Hello all; We should have built wikipedia decades ago. We should have built intelligent machines decades ago. We should have built a society running on reprocessed nuclear power decades ago. We should have fixed social security decades ago. Technology can help solve the problems in our world. But the software situation is in bad shape. In addition to Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell are all baby boomers and have not much helped the free software movement. Richard Stallman is a baby boomer, but many tell me they have heard he is crazy. Of course, they say Ballmer is crazy as well. There is no sense of entitlement. I'm actually glad that our generation gets to finally solve all the world's problems. I am just trying to do my part to speed things along and make sure it all happens in my lifetime. I do believe we could build a space elevator in less than 7 years. http://lifeboat.com/blog/2010/08/more-on-a-space-elevator-in... Anyway, bitter boomers shouldn't be sad. You at least will get to watch it happen. (Arthur C. Clarke won't get to see his space elevator.) And it can happen faster if you help more. One other big fault of your generation is that you all rail against greed (acting in one's own self-interest) and think the free market is bad. This has now lead many in Gen-X to think this as well, because teachers and the news anchors are boomers. Success in free software and greater prosperity in the outside world requires re-educating or replacing the many boomers in positions of power who continue to screw things up. |
| gus3 Sep 22, 2010 12:52 PM EDT |
@keithcu: Good luck with that space elevator thing. Between all the space junk our rocket pioneers left behind, and people on the ground who consider it a moral imperative to destroy everything made by everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do, I'm not nearly so optimistic. |
| hkwint Sep 22, 2010 2:43 PM EDT |
Because "greed is good"? Hehe. |
| ComputerBob Sep 22, 2010 4:51 PM EDT |
I'm glad that your incredible generation is going to build a space elevator that will finally solve all of the world's problems. |
| gus3 Sep 22, 2010 6:29 PM EDT |
Now, now, CB. Remember the good that the Apollo program did. I'm not saying "no good can come of a space elevator." I'm saying I don't hold out a lot of hope that we can ever find out. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 22, 2010 6:50 PM EDT |
I disagree about building a space elevator. They are too vulnerable, require materials that have yet to be invented, can only be built at the equator and cannot transport people (too much time spent in the Van Allen's belt). People should concentrate on building a Launch loop instead. It has none of the above disadvantages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop |
| keithcu Sep 22, 2010 7:16 PM EDT |
Hi again; I believe the space elevator can be built because I've had numerous chats with Brad Edwards and other rocket scientists and ex-NASA employees who tell me it can be built and who have answered every one of my questions. The problem with a launch loop is that it isn't a physical structure that we can hang stuff off of at GEO.. An SE is a launch mechanism and a sturdy structure in one. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 22, 2010 7:27 PM EDT |
@keithcu: I don't see why it's a problem that a launch loop does not extend physically to GEO. You use it to shoot stuff into GEO, just like we have been doing for decades with rockets. Changing orbits is a solved problem. |
| keithcu Sep 23, 2010 5:43 AM EDT |
The problem with a launch loop is that it doesn't provide us a place to anchor a spacestation at GEO. We can build a massive station up there, anchored to the ribbon. If we are going to build something long, we should build something that goes up. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 23, 2010 9:50 AM EDT |
Why would you need to anchor a space station at GEO? AFAIK it's entirely possible to build a massive space station at GEO that isn't anchored, given enough cheap launch capacity such as a launch loop would provide. Also, a launch loop with 2000 kilometers long and 80 kilometers high isn't that big compared to a space elevator that would need to be at least 38,000 kilometers tall, probably taller. |
| keithcu Sep 25, 2010 11:47 AM EDT |
Here is what former NASA employee Dave Lang told me about the launch loop: The launch loop is a monstrously kinetic gadget. If anything happens to disrupt its smooth operation (a train wreck type thing), all hell breaks loose (can you say "orbital-speed collisions")! it is not evident how you build something like that and get it "up to speed" (ie rising from the ground up to 80 km) in a graceful fashion....long before it rises, it will be a bit of a snake, lying on the surface, going like a bad-out-of-hell. While the SE has many engineering challenges, my gut says they pale in comparison to the LL. I haven't seen anyone talk about how the dual core (splits and) gets "turned around" (for the return trip across the loop) at the end-deflectors.....in fact I have yet to see an "engineering sketch" diagram even showing a dual core contained in the vacuum sheath that surrounds the core.....even though the LL folks constantly allude to the centrifugal force of the moving core that is holding this thing up.....implying of course a re-circulating core piece. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 27, 2010 5:38 AM EDT |
I don't know how well you know David Lang, but perhaps you could convince him to read the updated paper at launchloop.com. Most of the issues you described have been solved on paper. The proposed rotor is a single core construction, so no splitting. Graceful deployment can be achieved by building it over sea (which is better from a safety point of view as well) with the end stations being on floating pontoons. When the rotor is flat on the surface, the east and west stations are 300km further apart. As the launch loop rises, the stations move inward. It's a neat solution on paper. I see some problems with space elevators as well. When the tether fails or breaks, the lower part will wrap itself around the equator. More importantly (for me) is that you can't use the elevator to move people up and down because of radiation in the Van Allen's belt. You can only move goods with it. You're still dependent on rockets to move people about which is just terribly expensive. Ideally, I would like to go to space myself in 30 or 40 years :-) I see a better chance of that happening with a launch loop than with a space elevator (although the best chance is probably concept like Space Ship Two). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!