[wplug] [OT] Why /. doesn't matter -- WAS: Book published using Open Source software

[Tom Rhodes]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
"Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

> "Bryan J. Smith" <thebs413 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You can be an expert in a field of maybe only a dozen people.  And
> > the "mob rule" will make your details irrelevant if they don't fit
> > the "popular agenda." 
> > E.g., I worked at a leading async fabless semiconductor firm some
> > 6-8 years ago.  A colleague of mine and I who worked at that firm'
> > tried correct several people, and we were utterly lambasted.
> 
> Actually, for the heck of it, I hit /.  Saw several articles that
> reminded me why I don't read it.  E.g., the NASA/Endeavor thread.
> 
> But being a former NASA engineer myself (worked on missile defense
> before that), I can't even begin to correct people in that thread. 
> In fact, I'm laughed at when I point out that the STS (Shuttle
> Transport System) is the greatest engineering feat of NASA, and
> Project Apollo pales in comparison from an engineering perspective. 
> Heck, half of the people on /. probably think the moon landings were
> faked, based on watching one video, which is laughable to anyone who
> has basic engineering mechanics.
> 
> BTW, here's a perspective you'll _never_ hear on /.:  
> 
> "NASA keeps breaking a core rule of engineering"  
> http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/07/nasa-keeps-breaking-core-rule-of.html

NASA engineering is pathetic, the shuttle violates all kinds of
rules; saftey was one of them.  They only (supposedly) implemented
fixes in their organization after Challenger in 1986.  I mean,
Challenger blew up because of an o-ring.  AN O-RING!?  One drawback
is that NASA is prone to prolitical influence.  :(


-- 
Tom Rhodes