Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Obama II

Expand Messages
  • Dan Minette
    ... regarded it as a bluff or ... started off serious, then ... up-close and personal experience ... most peoples minds still; ... of the bully pulpit, sure
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
      >I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials
      regarded it as a bluff or
      >not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have
      started off serious, then
      >decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some
      up-close and personal experience
      >with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in
      most peoples' minds still;
      >when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power
      of the bully pulpit, sure was
      >interesting to see it first-hand.

      If it was a bluff, it was a brilliant bluff. Getting the USSR to focus on
      Star Wars instead of invading Europe and hastening their collapse to
      minimize the time of risk was just what Truman thought of when we came up
      with containment instead of war. As it was, we were luckly. If the coup
      wasn't overturned, the USSR would have reformed and a last gasp attack on
      Europe might have happened.

      Dan M.


      _______________________________________________
      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
      ... Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I m glad they didn t take control of the USA too. Alberto Monteiro the paranoid
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
        Bryon Daly wrote:
        >
        > Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he
        > basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get
        > the party nomination.
        >
        Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I'm
        glad they didn't take control of the USA too.

        Alberto Monteiro the paranoid

        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • Klaus Stock
        ... AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that s mainly because Ada imposes so many
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
          > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
          > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
          > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
          > automatically eliminated bugs.

          AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
          time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
          imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
          mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
          which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
          run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
          may even cause bugs in extreme cases).

          Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
          superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
          programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
          to more efficient languages.

          However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
          earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
          the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
          magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
          the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.


          Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
          the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
          standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
          standards. No further explanation necessary.

          Best regards, Klaus


          _______________________________________________
          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        • Pat Mathews
          This plays into some recent conversations about efficiency vs resilience. ... _______________________________________________
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
            This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

            > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
            > From: ks@...
            > To: brin-l@...
            > Subject: Re: Obama II
            >
            > > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
            > > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
            > > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
            > > automatically eliminated bugs.
            >
            > AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
            > time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
            > imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
            > mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
            > which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
            > run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
            > may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
            >
            > Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
            > superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
            > programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
            > to more efficient languages.
            >
            > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
            > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
            > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
            > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
            > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
            >
            >
            > Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
            > the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
            > standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
            > standards. No further explanation necessary.
            >
            > Best regards, Klaus
            >
            >
            > _______________________________________________
            > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            >
          • Klaus Stock
            ... Yup. And neither efficiency nor resilience will help you in the end if you don t ponder some important questions first. Like: do we measure altitude
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
              > This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

              Yup. And neither "efficiency" nor "resilience" will help you in the
              end if you don't ponder some important questions first. Like: "do we
              measure altitude in feet or meters?", or "should we check if the old
              guidance system will work okay in the new rocket?"

              - Klaus

              >> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
              >> From: ks@...
              >> To: brin-l@...
              >> Subject: Re: Obama II
              >>
              >> > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
              >> > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
              >> > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
              >> > automatically eliminated bugs.
              >>
              >> AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
              >> time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
              >> imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
              >> mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
              >> which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
              >> run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
              >> may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
              >>
              >> Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
              >> superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
              >> programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
              >> to more efficient languages.
              >>
              >> However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
              >> earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
              >> the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
              >> magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
              >> the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
              >>
              >>
              >> Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
              >> the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
              >> standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
              >> standards. No further explanation necessary.
              >>
              >> Best regards, Klaus
              >>
              >>
              >> _______________________________________________
              >> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
              >>

              >

              >



              --
              Best regards,
              Klaus mailto:ks@...


              _______________________________________________
              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            • Doug Pensinger
              Actually, bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build. Doug GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012

                Actually,  bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build.

                Doug
                GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

              • Dan Minette
                ... You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those types of bugs that become features in software. But, I m very unusual, I program
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 17, 2012
                  >
                  > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                  > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                  > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                  > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                  > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.

                  You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those
                  types of bugs that become features in software. But, I'm very unusual, I
                  program as a means of thinking out the physics of the problem I'm trying to
                  solve. In other words, I write software, where the previous generation, or
                  even physicists 5 years ahead of me, would work things on on paper.

                  I recall, back in '81, patientily listening to a post doc explaining how to
                  do the error anaysis of my data. I patiently listened to him, he knew more
                  than I did on most things and had earned my respect, until there was a
                  pause.

                  I then asked him, but isn't this just an approximation, wouldn't running a
                  Monte Carlo to get the error be more accurate.

                  He said "yes, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to do a Monte
                  Carlo error analysis?"

                  I said "yes, $0.27. I did it this morning."

                  He looked at me, and said "grad. students have it too easy these days, and I
                  left his office"

                  The moral of the story is that if you think carfully about what questions
                  you ask early, and your job title allows you to do that (as someone who is
                  expected to come up with inventions that solve problems, you get some
                  leeway...especially if you have a PhD in physics....it may not be fair that
                  we get more leeway, but it's my experience), then you can have software that
                  actually basically works the first time it is tried with a real tool. I've
                  twice had the experience of "well we'll try this, but we'll have to get back
                  to you when it fails" and me saying "but, I've tested it pretty extensively
                  on data in post processing mode, if the same data is in the tool, I'll have
                  failure modes with unusual data, but it should generally work" and having it
                  work first time in the tool.

                  Dan M.



                  _______________________________________________
                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.