Friday, August 31, 2007

Mission and method

Under a framework provided by 'truth engineering' as it may apply to 'oops, loops and oops, (and unfortunately, poops) this blog looks at issues related to modern situations (No exhibition planned of hubris, in any of its senses, within the contents of this blog).

An early example was the theme of the flightblogger by Jon Ostrower. There was a whole lot involved with this type of topic.

However, the focus is not chiefly aerospace, or any strict domain for that matter. We stand at a crux of real (quasi-empirical) issues and the virtual (of many sorts) proxies as the major players whose effects will set the stage for the future (warning - platitudes may abound).

The expectations are that events, about which we can have thoughtful analysis and reasoned opinion, will not be hard to find. That a particular airplane program might be undergoing interesting phases at the moment is only circumstantially related, though, some motivations may arise thusly.

Posts can be done in 3 stages: initial draft, then links to on-line supporting material, finally editing to remove any troublesome-ness. All edits, after the initial date, will be marked by a datestamp.

Posts are intentionally non-linear. Later edits will provide bi-directional links that will tie together posts through time to allow expansions on a theme. A list of links will be used to represent successive discussions (linearity, example leveraging) on a subject.

Since posts develop on-line through drafts toward a final (when are the 'oops and the loops finished?), the ellipsis (...) indicates further work is on-going.

Let's take a moment to consider matters of conduct.

Comments will not be moderated, however they may be cleaned up via summary if necessary.


08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

08/24/2011 -- On the method, see the Profile.

01/27/2009 -- On Method: still doing writing without automated checkers. See Remarks dated 10/30/08. Modifications are accompanied with a date stamp at the bottom of the post.

10/30/2008 -- To readers, in general, concerning syntax. These posts are done by hand, with quick reviews and edits of the material for grammar, etc. As we all know, things can get by the eye. They can get by several sets of eyes.

So, the request is that on reading, if you see a typo, do a gestalt fixup in that area. Usually, a few words later, things settle down. Now, having said that, the intent is to switch to using a processor, at some point, that can be used for both spell and grammar checks which is expected to reduce those little troublesome quirks.

As an aside, the method of exposition is via touch typing (yes, all fingered, having taken a class in high school, many years ago, over the years, I've honed the technique - so, there is no thought to the keyboard except as it may be caressed so as to manifest letters corresponding to the particular word or phrase mentally held in focus) which has proven to be very effective in allowing cross-wired word smashing, such as the fingers typing out of an area that is different from where the mental focus thinks it's looking.

Oops is the only way to describe this. So, even grammar checkers cannot always find some of the more subtle problems that can arise with digitized English phrasing. So, why bother? The automated checkers cannot read the mind's intent.

Besides, they indicate some lazy habit. Joyce's continuing modifications to manuscript is one example and almost an ideal.

Modified: 08/24/2016

No comments: