As a researcher, I struggle every day to make the robots of tomorrow do things they cannot do today. It's easy to get frustrated at the lack of actual advancement vs what our imaginations tell us is possible. And so it's refreshing to be reminded what robots can do today and what impact they've already had.
Is it opposite day? How does this improve the product so people want to buy it?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/dvds-and-blu-rays-will-now-carry-two-unskippable-government-warnings/
I'm grateful I had the opportunity to meet this man in July near Johnson Space Center in TX during my robotics experiment on a zero-g flight. Clay led an amazing life.
Steve Jobs passed away yesterday. Since the announcement, the world has praised his work, sympathized with his family, and expressed sadness over his death. It may seem a bit strange for so many people to feel sad over the passing of someone they've never met, but I think this is really a testament to Jobs' impact in the world.
Jobs was extremely good at bringing new technology to the public in a way that delivers on the promise the technology has to offer. He offered unparalleled taste in regards to the right mixture of technology and the arts. Technology alone offers a lot of functional promise, but in a very cold and inaccessible way. The arts add beauty, emotion, and interaction design to technology in order to make it easier and more enjoyable to use. These qualities have lead to very successful Apple products that enable an experience that people genuinely love. I think that it is this emotional connection that has many people sad on the day of Jobs' death. Learning of the passing of someone who played an important role in so many great personal experiences is sad.
Part of my move to a new job last year included formally dipping my toes into some management responsibilities. My new responsibilities would be split approximately 50/50 between management and hands on technical work. Looking back at my first year, I think I failed miserably at dedicating enough time to do one of the most important activities to me right now in my career: robotics software development.
Lack of time spent engineering software systems for robotics was one of the main reasons I left my previous job. I'm fascinated by the challenges at the intersection of software engineering and robotics. If I take a serious look at my previous job, I don't think the conditions in that organization were right for pursuing my passion of robotic software engineering. In my new position, the work I want to be doing is being done. I just haven't been doing it.
In the past year, my software development time has consisted of learning the existing software infrastructure and implementing one medium-sized feature (which is still not fully integrated). The rest of my time has been spent supporting my boss in managing the team, learning to manage a small team of software developers, managing and setting up some of our IT infrastructure, managing a field experiment, coordinating with partners outside our team, and operating one flavor of our robotic systems. I can't quantify the split between management and technical work, but I'm positive it's nowhere near the 50/50 mark.
Moving forward into my second year I'm going to make a more conscious effort towards guarding my time so that I can achieve a better balance between my management activities and my technical development efforts. While I have no illusions that I can set a fixed schedule of my activities, I think I can make an effort each week to maintain a better balance. If one week requires me to put extra effort into my management role then I'll do that, but I need to make sure that I compensate for that in the following weeks.
This is going to be an ongoing balancing act that I'll have to manage throughout my career.
I've heard complaining about the patent system, particularly related to software patents, for some time, but I only recently started coming across some material that starts discussing the issues at hand. I'm far from fully appreciating the issue, but it certainly does seem like something is wrong when the only companies that can function in the current system are ones that have sufficient capital to build large patent portfolios or pay licensing fees to others that do.
Two podcasts I listen to recently dedicated episodes on this topic and I think they provide a pretty decent introduction to the material. The first is an episode of Build and Analyze where Marco Arment (of iOS Instapaper fame) discusses software patents. The second is an episode of This American Life covers more ground and provides more context of patent litigation as a whole.
Amazing shot of RRM being moved from the shuttle to ISS. It made the NASA pic of the day.
The whole thing is worth listening to, but if you want to hear the key part on our Robotic Refueling Mission skip to 2:42.
Sorry, the video uses flash :-(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hlqee1oUFs
Best overview of the RRM mission I've seen in the press yet. People are starting to get it now.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/sts-135-enabling-new-era-robotic-satellite-refuelling-space/
Powered by Squarespace
