4 ms·

> The Jasons' solution was to develop a system of remote sensors that could be airdropped into the jungle and provide intelligence on the enemy. The program, li

by tus87 7y ago

> The Jasons' solution was to develop a system of remote sensors that could be airdropped into the jungle and provide intelligence on the enemy. The program, like much to do with Vietnam, was controversial and didn't work perfectly LOL so a bunch of ivory tower academics who have never left the cushy confines of campus let alone entered a battlefield come up with impractical and useless inventions that got dumped within a day. What's the bet men on the ground hated them! And the real solution came from some comms officer who knows a bit about soldering and sensors (and the reality of jungle warfare) probably. Im surprised the DOD put up with them for so long.

learc83 7y ago
Who do you think designs aircraft, ground vehicles, radar, and weapons systems? The vast majority of that work is done by people who have never seen combat, and that includes technology that the troops on the ground do love.
- tus87 7y ago
  Big private companies that employ LOTS of ex soldiers who work closely with real engineers who solve problems. Neither of these should be conflated with airy fairy academics.
  - Aromasin 7y ago
    You've really wandered onto the wrong website if you don't like academics. At least as far as the UK is concerned, in my time in the Aerospace Defence industry every single person I've worked with has been an academic in some sense. There are almost no ex-soldiers involved in the process, unless they have an academic background. For us, the Defence Engineering and Science Group bring in a think-tank of currently serving soldiers to discuss their needs with them, then DESG work on procurement. They then contract that out to a private R&D company. We get a spec and work to fulfil that. From friends within the industry, other than perhaps BAE which do look favourably on ex-soldiers provided they have an degree (more academics huh...), all the work is done by a bunch of postgraduate scientists. It seems to me that your perception of how the 'big private companies' work it somewhat outdated...
    - tus87 7y ago
      I didn't say I don't like them, but I think it's fair to say computer science is a case study in ivory tower academia that rarely offers practical solutions to real world problems. But we sure have a lot of lisp variants to thank them for. And yeah I'm not sure "procurement" gives you the best perspective on how solutions are developed. You might not engage your users much but I can guarantee you the problem solving engineers building guns and planes have soldiers and pilots deeply involved in the process from conception to sustainment.
      - bdamm 7y ago
        Absolutely any successful aircraft has pilots on the development team. And you're absolutely right that us in the computer business DO spend a lot of time navel gazing instead of listening to the users. It's endemic.
        learc83 7y ago
        >Absolutely any successful aircraft has pilots on the development team Of course it does. But I'm a bit unsure as to how this has gone from academics don't know nuthin. To design teams who never listen to users are bad. The latter is a measured, reasonable argument. The former is just anti-intellectual nonsense. No one every said anything about having zero pilots on an aircraft development team. >And you're absolutely right that us in the computer business DO spend a lot of time navel gazing instead of listening to the users. It's endemic. That's endemic everywhere from CEOs, to the guy changing your brakes, to the real estate agent selling you a house. It has absolutely nothing to do with academics. And again this is a much different argument from Computer Scientists rarely produce anything useful. The problem with the OP's argument is that you can't pin it down. Academics are bad--except when their R&D work produces something useful. Then they weren't academics, they were problem solving engineers, and it was the guy on the ground who did the real work their anyway. Computer Scientists are bad except in the case of something like asymmetrical encryption--well in that case it was one of the rare instances where they did something useful.

by tus87 7y ago

learc83 7y ago

Who do you think designs aircraft, ground vehicles, radar, and weapons systems? The vast majority of that work is done by people who have never seen combat, and that includes technology that the troops on the ground do love.

tus87 7y ago
Big private companies that employ LOTS of ex soldiers who work closely with real engineers who solve problems. Neither of these should be conflated with airy fairy academics.
- Aromasin 7y ago
  You've really wandered onto the wrong website if you don't like academics. At least as far as the UK is concerned, in my time in the Aerospace Defence industry every single person I've worked with has been an academic in some sense. There are almost no ex-soldiers involved in the process, unless they have an academic background. For us, the Defence Engineering and Science Group bring in a think-tank of currently serving soldiers to discuss their needs with them, then DESG work on procurement. They then contract that out to a private R&D company. We get a spec and work to fulfil that. From friends within the industry, other than perhaps BAE which do look favourably on ex-soldiers provided they have an degree (more academics huh...), all the work is done by a bunch of postgraduate scientists. It seems to me that your perception of how the 'big private companies' work it somewhat outdated...
  - tus87 7y ago
    I didn't say I don't like them, but I think it's fair to say computer science is a case study in ivory tower academia that rarely offers practical solutions to real world problems. But we sure have a lot of lisp variants to thank them for. And yeah I'm not sure "procurement" gives you the best perspective on how solutions are developed. You might not engage your users much but I can guarantee you the problem solving engineers building guns and planes have soldiers and pilots deeply involved in the process from conception to sustainment.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Absolutely any successful aircraft has pilots on the development team. And you're absolutely right that us in the computer business DO spend a lot of time navel gazing instead of listening to the users. It's endemic.
      - learc83 7y ago
        >Absolutely any successful aircraft has pilots on the development team Of course it does. But I'm a bit unsure as to how this has gone from academics don't know nuthin. To design teams who never listen to users are bad. The latter is a measured, reasonable argument. The former is just anti-intellectual nonsense. No one every said anything about having zero pilots on an aircraft development team. >And you're absolutely right that us in the computer business DO spend a lot of time navel gazing instead of listening to the users. It's endemic. That's endemic everywhere from CEOs, to the guy changing your brakes, to the real estate agent selling you a house. It has absolutely nothing to do with academics. And again this is a much different argument from Computer Scientists rarely produce anything useful. The problem with the OP's argument is that you can't pin it down. Academics are bad--except when their R&D work produces something useful. Then they weren't academics, they were problem solving engineers, and it was the guy on the ground who did the real work their anyway. Computer Scientists are bad except in the case of something like asymmetrical encryption--well in that case it was one of the rare instances where they did something useful.