The lessons of Bernie

What are these? Well, there are several that Bernie wants us to know.

To recap, this post (By necessity, Ponzi) is dated 12/15/2008. We even proposed that Made-off be used rather than the name of that guy from the olden times.

Remember those times, a couple of years ago? Even after the new day, things appeared to be dire. They still are, for most folks, despite the shining chimera.

We'll have to re-look at this since our monetary basis is a 'gab standard' that is weak. How can we make it real? Not an easy subject, folks. The motivation? Look at Minsky's (7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated) take on the matter.

As further refreshing of memory, here is 'Made-off' in the three blogs.

• 7oops7
• Truth Engineering
• FEDaerated

Bernie exploited our unstable computational ontology, meaning, of course, more than just the platforms, technology, and mathematics. He was able to 'pull the wool' for a very long time. And, he did this on very smart people.

Much to learn there.

Remarks:

04/12/2011 -- Now, we hear that Harvard wants Bernie to teach ethics to the best and brightest! It is obvious that he ought to be a case study and a specimen of what not to do. That is, analyze him to the core. His motivations would be included. The biggest lesson? How we have dumbed down ourselves in order to make the system, and its artifacts (see comments on hive mentality), work.

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

Modified: 04/12/2011

Sealy shimming

Being kind in the use here, as 'shim' implies thin. The shim being used for the Sealy consists of 4 folded bath towels, two folded sheets, and then two layers of mattress pad. That, foks, is not a slim shim.

Too, remember, in some engineering circles, the use of shims points to poor design or workmanship. Of course, it could be related to material, to boot.

---

What does this problem imply in the case of Sealy? As we saw before, their quality assessment filters out, very successfully, this type of problem. That is, they seem to have consciously applied techniques that do not 'see' the problem. Not only is their assessment targeted to looks (as in, a 1 1/2" permanent depression considered okay), the whole approach averages across an eight-inch span.

---

I was given the challenge of finding a 'functional' test that would be fair. Hence, these posts. The challenge did not come directly from Sealy, yet one has to think that they know about the issue.

---

Imagine trying to sleep on a 'firm' mattress that has differences in how much the mattress sinks when a small amount of weight is placed on the surface. And, consider that the difference in the 'give' amounts to several inches at one point.

10 lbs test (actually, a mere 2 lbs)

	1	2	3
1	2.25	1.50	2.25	head of mattress
2	1.25	1.00	3.50	middle of mattress
3	1.00	0.50	1.50	foot of mattress

This table show the amount of 'give' at nine points on the mattress, using two five-pound weights placed together. The measurement was to the lowest point of the mattress from a string that was stretched across the mattress and that was weighted on both ends. The string was similar to the one in the 'jig' set that was used by the Sealy representative when he did the static (averaged) test.

---

One could characterize the experience as sinking into a hole out of which one has to climb in order to get out of the bed. The 'hole' appears only on one side, as if the mattress is firm on one side and the most plush of the plush on the other.

---

A mere three and one-half inches (3 1/2", 8.89 cm)? (See Remarks, 04/29/2011) Probably, the psychological impact ought to use a logarithmic scale for any depression beyond the 1/2" expectation.

---

But, what is 'firm' in this context? We'll look at that and more.

---

There will be a re-measure (see Remarks, 04/29/2011 -- the new measure doubled the weight in a couple of areas), using a smaller basis for the 10 lbs. The above numbers actually applied only about a 2-lbs test, due to the fact that the 'jig' had too broad of a span.

Remarks:

11/24/2011 -- The finale.

04/29/2011 -- The store is honoring its guarantee and replacing the mattress. Before it left the premises, I thought that there ought to be one more measurement. Remember, from the above table, that a 10-lb pressure test was used. Between the highest and lowest depression, there was a difference of three inches. So, what would it look like if, at those two areas, we added 10-lbs to the weight (broad base, that is, this was not a point test)?

In the more firm area, the additional ten pounds (20-lb test) increased the depression a little over an inch. In the softer area (reminder: ultra-firm mattress), the additional weight caused a depression, in that area of the mattress, that measured almost SIX inches. That is, the additional ten pounds pushed the mattress down a further 2 1/2 inches.

And, the difference between firm and soft increased from three inches to four and one-half inches. Would that not be considered significant?

Reminder: we're talking a functional, pressure test that ought to be within the capability of Sealy. Their representative mentioned that he thought such a test (see Sealy Snafu) would be an improvement (and said that he had asked an engineer customer, to no effect). In their static test, which was cosmetic, there was no way to test how a mattress performs while in use. Too, their current jig is seriously biased in their favor. The outer cover may spring back, yet yield like soft butter to a reclining body.

Given their current scheme, how the heck can Sealy learn anything to make improvements that are functionally sound?

03/15/2011 -- Status, the store will replace the mattress. They, essentially, were waiting for Sealy to step up to its responsibility which never happened. Further measurements coming.

Modified: 11/24/2011

Sealy saga

In the prior post on this subject, a weight-based measuring theme was discussed as being, perhaps, more fair than the current method in trying to assess a mattress. In other words, try to do a functional test (that is, how well does the mattress hold weight?) rather than do a mere cosmetic measurement.

So, what steps, and the tools, would be in that method? We'll keep the string (stretched across the bed, with weighted ends), use a metal tape measure, and figure some type of jig.

We can use an example with this real case. Let's divide the mattress into nine cells, namely 3x3. If the first row was across the top of the mattress, from left to right, then, third row would be across the bottom. In the middle of each cell, there would be a measurement while the weight was applied in that area.

The 'weight jig' for this case will have a base of about five inches which is a little smaller than the jig used by Sealy. The measurement would be done two times, one at five lbs and one at ten lbs. And, the measurement is from the string to the lowest part of the mattress under the string.

---

In the below image, measurements at five and ten pounds, and a couple of difference calculations are shown. What is obvious from these numbers is that the total delta of the measurements shown at the 10-pound weight is huge (up to 3.5") and widely variant (3" spread of the numbers).

Measurements (inches)

5 lbs test

	1	2	3
1	1.50	1.00	1.25	head of mattress
2	1.00	0.75	2.50	middle of mattress
3	0.75	0.50	0.75	foot of mattress

10 lbs test

	1	2	3
1	2.25	1.50	2.25	head of mattress
2	1.25	1.00	3.50	middle of mattress
3	1.00	0.50	1.50	foot of mattress

Deltas (inches)

5-to-10 lbs diff

	1	2	3
1	0.75	0.50	1.00	head of mattress
2	0.25	0.25	1.00	middle of mattress
3	0.25	0.00	0.75	foot of mattress

10 lbs, diff of sides

	1	2	3
1	0.75	0.00	0.75	head of mattress
2	0.25	0.00	2.50	middle of mattress
3	0.50	0.00	1.00	foot of mattress

Two deltas are shown. '10 lbs, diff of sides' indicates the difference between the middle and the two sides using the 10-lbs measurement. That is, taking column two (middle) as the base expectation, the right side (column three) has excessive give (2.5"), especially in the middle of the mattress.

With the 5-to-10 pound delta, we see that the right side (column three) shows excess changes (that is, applying another 10 lbs caused 1" of sink; as comparison, note that some areas had only a 1/4" change). It was the right side of the mattress that raised the original concern after only two weeks of use.

-----

Now, there are many other ways to go with a functional assessment. The measurement, in this case, was at a point, using a standard tape measure. The measuring device could be a little wider.

What weight? Ten pounds seemed reasonable. However, if one sits in bed and reads, the area of most pressure would be far beyond that. Why not test for that?

The device used by Sealy (recalled as about 8"x4") could be altered slightly to make a fair measurement. Sealy could just change their jig to be a little shorter by only a few inches. Then, they add weight which would be very easy to do.

The questions are several. For instance, what is proper give (sink) by type of mattress? Remember, the mattress being measured here is, supposedly, FIRM. What weight would need to be applied in a reasonable fashion?

---

As well as a pressure test, why not have the evaluator try the mattress? Is that too subjective? How else can a soft spot be identified? In this case, it is obvious that there is more of a sink on the right-hand side (looking from the foot to the head) than on the left side.

---

When did business start to have a defensive mode with regard to its customers? The customer is looking for a product that works, has value, and can last. What is the business out for? Mere profit?

Ah, so many questions to discuss, especially with regard to that belief system called capitalism. Has it not been demonstrated, of late, that capitalism mainly devolves into the cap-ital-sino? Does it not reward those with jungle mentality?

Come to think of it, the current problems (of the recent three to four years) show many things, like the disparity between the elite (The Atlantic - Global Elite) and the rest. I really don't know of any historic case, that has been sustained for a period of time. And, libertarian folks, I'm not talking fictional examples. Even in the US, we have had a long history, what with the robber barons, the Made-offs, et al. But, those issues are addressed at FEDaerated.

Remarks:

11/24/2011 -- The finale.

04/29/2011 -- See Remarks, 04/29/2011

.03/15/2011 -- Status, the store will replace the mattress. They, essentially, were waiting for Sealy to step up to its responsibility which never happened. Further measurements coming.

02/27/2011 -- Switched measurements table from an image to HTML. As well, shimmy, shim, shim.

02/23/2011 -- What faces the consumer? Making a decision about which piece of crap is more worthy than another, essentially.

02/22/2011 -- One may ask how the Sealy customer fairs with such a poor mattress. How can one sleep? With folded towels and sheets under two sets of mattress pads which fill in the holes sufficiently, for now. Yes, quite a contraption and contrivance to use for what is not a cheap mattress set.

Modified: 11/24/2011

Sealy's snafu

Recently, a guy was sent to a customer's house by Sealy in response to a photo showing a point measurement (using a tape measure) of a depression of almost 3" in a new Stearns and Foster mattress. Ostensibly, it was a 'firm' mattress. After only a few days of use, this firm mattress started to sink as if it were the most soft, and plush, of mattresses.

The guy arrived with his tools. One of these was a string with weights on each end. Okay, that is a good way to show dents in the interior because you can stretch the string across the mattress and differences are then obvious. The other tool was a 'jig' that was about 8"x4"x4" (approximately - the Sealy customer (Sc) did not think to measure the tool -what? question the motives and expertise of Sealy?). As well, this jig had markings up to 1 1/2" (this was not verified, either).

As the guy was setting up to measure, the Sc told him of the soft spots in the bed. He wanted to know if the Sealy guy would lie down on both sides of the mattress and notice the difference. Would this not be a good test? No, this is the not the method to measure, the Sealy guy said. The approach is to stretch the string across the mattress and then measure with the jig along the string. This type of measurement was done from several angles.

The result? The highest number was just shy of the 1 1/2" marking. To me, that would be reasonably close to showing a problem, but it is not good enough for Sealy. As well, the jig was averaging across the area and not doing a point measurement. Why? Well, the Sealy guy says that he was instructed to use this method because doing the point measure, which he did do in the past, pointed out too many failures. Oh? Sealy, tsk, tsk!!!!

The Sealy guy also said that he had gone to the house of an engineer who had questioned the current method. The Sealy guy said that he had told the engineer that if he could design a better jig, then he would use it. But, the engineer never got back to him.

The Sc palpitated the mattress which showed that there was a large soft spot. Not good enough, says the Sealy guy, since he cannot verify that the Sc was not being over exuberant in the one area in order to show that it was soft.

My question is, why cannot there be a pressure measurement? Look, Sealy, let me tell you how this can be done. But, first, let's look at some issues.

Lesson one is that Sealy's method emphasizes cosmetics. You know, form over function? Prettiness over effectiveness (would be better to use efficacy)? Now, did Stearns and Foster engineer the bed so that it would spring-back enough to meet their measure yet not provide the proper support for the sleeper's back? Is this a case of buyer beware?

Another lesson is that Sealy must think that the buying public is too stupid to recognize this sleight-of-hand. The jig is almost laughable, but it does keep Sealy from having to accept that a mattress is bad.

So, let's talk a new method. This is a mere sketch; we'll follow up with numbers later. We can keep the first tool, that is, the string. The jig? Let's replace it with a 3x5 card. Then, we could do a measure along the 3" side and the 5" side. The measure would be at various points.

Now, consider someone who is about 120 lbs. The pressure on the mattress will be spread along the body, but the hips would be a higher pressure point. We could assume that a 10 lb test is sufficient to represent this, though it may actually be way too low.

Like the Sealy guy, we'll run the string, apply the weight, and do the measures next to the string. How many places?

If we include the soft area and an area that is functioning correctly, and include a few more areas, the numbers ought to be significant. We do not have to, but will at some point, take it to statistical significance if the difference is large enough.

Now, Sealy, that is an example of a functional test.

These numbers will be collected sometime soon.

---

It would be interesting to know how many people have had this sham of an evaluation and are stuck with a bad mattress. How is it that Sealy can sell this mattress as firm when it obviously is not?

Remarks:

11/24/2011 -- The finale.

04/29/2011 -- See Remarks, 04/29/2011.

03/15/2011 -- Status, the store will replace the mattress. They, essentially, were waiting for Sealy to step up to its responsibility which never happened. Further measurements coming.

02/26/2011 -- Shimmy, shim, shim.

02/23/2011 -- Sounds stupid. A new mattress shimmed in order for it to function. Is that symbolic of the economic mess brought on by these big guys, like Sealy, et al? The consumer is left with weighing relative characteristics of crap.

02/22/2011 -- One may ask how the Sealy customer fairs with such a poor mattress. How can one sleep? With folded towels and sheets under two sets of mattress pads which fill in the holes somewhat sufficiently, for now. Yes, quite a contraption and contrivance to use for what is not a cheap mattress set.

02/15/2011 -- One example of pressure-oriented measurement and results thereof.

02/09/2011 -- A pointer to this post was put on Sealy's Facebook page as a Note. The Note is gone. Gosh, any meaning there? Sometime, in the near future, I'll follow up with the functional test results.

02/09/2011 -- Sealy's response letter contained this verbiage (the emphasis is Sealy's):

• Our warranty states that the impressions would have to be greater than 1.5" deep in order for the mattress to be considered defective and to be replaced. Body impressions are a normal occurrence with any mattress regardless of brand or construction.

Oh, yes, Sealy. Firstly, this is a FIRM mattress, yet it collapses on one side when someone puts their body there. Oh, function does not apply in evaluation, at all, from your viewpoint? Ought a FIRM mattress behave like the most plush of the plush? This 'softness' was noticeable after only two weeks of use. Secondly, I can show you a 30-year old Sealy mattress that has been regularly rotated and flipped. It is still fully functional, provides a perfect sleeping platform, shows no impressions, and does not have any defect that would suggest that it could not go another 30 years. Thirdly, as said above, your measurement scheme is biased in your favor not the favor of your customers. But, the real issue is how this state of affairs came about that this customer is just waved off as a nuisance. Fourthly, how much engineering effort goes into ensuring that your mattresses can pass your biased 1.5" test? And, impressions? I spend a lot of time in hotels. If I got a room where the mattress had impressions, I would ask to move. Fifthly, assuming that a Sc could cover 'impressions' with bedding, in this case, the bedding is quite concave in that area after a person has been on the mattress for awhile. Plus, the bedding does not overcome the 'softness' (think, sinking into a hole) that prevents a comfortable sleep.

Modified: 11/24/2011

Dr Oz's Wipeout

Dr. Oz is obviously a smart guy. However, I wonder if he knows that he is breaking a truth-in-advertising moral and that he is perpetuating a scam on his listening audience.

Let me explain (particulars being glossed over to illustrate the issues). Earlier this year, there was a shoe give-away via the Internet. The instructions from the show, and on the DoctorOZ site, said that at 300 pm ET, people could attempt to win a pair of shoes by queuing up at the site. The idea was that the first 200 hundred or so would get the shoes.

Now, consider that most people's notion is like we see on Black Friday. One goes to the store, gets one's place, and then enters (without stampede as we know the negative consequences of that) when it's one's turn.

The queue up on the internet is not the same, folks. First of all, when they open the door, entry is determined by a bunch of things that can occur between your system and the server handling the give-away. So, getting in the door to get an entry form is like we see with the show where people get clobbered while doing an idiotic obstacle course. I have not watched it but have seen the commercials.

So, some get in the door (everything lines up), many don't and have to try again (they are told by the system that the server isn't available). Those who get in the door get a form.

As we would expect, filling in the form is not problem, usually, but there could be fields that need to be correctly entered. We'll see a couple of examples below.

Now, if the person gets the form filled in, it goes back to the queue to get into the door, so that filled-in entry form gets into the server's brief attention span. Evidently, enough made it through all of these hoops (or 'oops, as in the label) since the limit was reached.

In the case of one viewer, I observed several attempts to get the entry form. Now, being told that the server was busy could many several things. Was it turned off since the limit was reached? Were too many queries coming in at once? Whatever the reason, just being told that the server is not available means nothing. So one would keep trying.

Now, the form actually came over several times and was filled in. But, on the submit step, there was another message that the server was not available (the form was not successful in getting in the door).

At some point, not getting a form would imply that the game was over. Sure enough, lagging by several minutes would be a message posted that the give-away was over. Sorry, it said.

On that first go-around, there was a place to put in shoe size. First of all, if this was mere registering, why go into such details? Well, the shoe site had listings that showed half-sizes, as a real number (as in, 9.5). But, the entry form would not take such and said that it wasn't a number. Okay, perhaps that was a filtering method. Remove those who aren't integer in size. Yet, the delay of having the form rejected caused the person to re-queue for a form (back into the Wipeout state).

Today, there were several things given away. Watching the action brought up the same issues. At several sites, there were several times that the server was not available, either to provide the form or to accept a filled-out form. Okay, that may have been due to too many people trying at the same time. If that type of thing were tried physically, there would have been a lot of bruised people.

So, that, Dr Oz, is where you need to recognize that these are not give-aways to the first of anything. Unless, you say that those who make it through all of the hoops ('oops) are who count. It would be interesting to look at the logs and see the failure (oops) rates. As in this, how many thousand failures were there for each success?

Some of the companies were classy. The shoe site did show server failure, but they also were quick to switch to the sorry message rather than just make the server unavailable imply losing the game. It took the Barnes & Noble site much longer to post the sorry message than I would expect, except they used a promotions company who ought to know better.

There was one wrinkle in the B&N entry form that I noticed. In order to keep bots (as in automated attempts) from working, they wanted the person to type in what was in an image. You've seen these things. Scrambled letters (rather, characters, CAPTCHA) that cannot easily be extracted by image processing techniques. Actually, even by the eye, some are difficult to decipher.

Well, in all of the B&N entry forms (meaning that the person got in the door and obtained a form) that I observed, there was no image (in other words, bad form). Again, was this a filtering method? That is the second point, Dr Oz, which relates to the accounting for these types of things. As you can see, they are random according to the first point. Now, there are silly things like the missing image, or thinking that half-sizes don't exist, which keep someone from making it through the hoops ('oops).

The current method is not first-come, first-served in any normal context. How can it be made so? Or, if it cannot, then the description needs to change to use Wipeout, or something similar, as a metaphor.

Why not just do a random drawing on those who get through the hoops ('oops) in the first 1/2 hour or so?

By the way, the viewer tried to get one of the items at 4:32 pm. Guess what? It worked, at least, to the point of accepting the form and replying that they would send an e-mail about how to get the item. That is 1 1/2 hour after the start. Did people just give up from being hit in the Wipeout fashion?

However, there is the chance that the acceptance was an error. It may be that the 'sorry' message had not been activated yet for that item as it had already been for all of the others.

I'll follow up on this later.

Remarks:

06/17/2014 -- Dr Oz called before Congress. Not sure what this is all about and not going to watch closely (look at the comments (pot calling the kettle black, goes the adage). My gripe stands. Why not use some of his money to improve how he handles the internet side of whatever he is doing? Just having a disclaimer that his stuff is entertainment is a cop-out, IMHO.

01/19/2011 -- Same old thing. On the TV that I was near yesterday, the good Dr said that there would be a give away tomorrow (today, of course). He said 1,000 chip makers would be given away. So, I thought that  might be interesting to try. The page (at Dr Oz site) said that it would open (as in the registration) at 3 pm EST. I got on to the site at 3:01 pm EST. There was a form to fill in. But, on hitting the submit button, it said that registration was closed. Just like that. Again. either someone had to sit there and at 3:00 on the nose, do the keyboard work. Of course, that only takes 1/2 a minute, at most. Then, the submit would queue you back into the site (your getting the form is not when you actually queue for the drawing). The show is popular, so it could easily hit 1000 in a minute. But, that is definitely not 1st come due to what was discussed before. On the other hand, were there 1000 to be give? The window closed awful quickly. Is it that the good Dr wants people to drop everything and just concentrate on hitting a window that is probably only seconds wide? It's not a game of skill given the dynamics of TCP (et al). The irony is that the words on the page said that the drawing was for a week. I didn't get any confirmation that the form took. Would that not be part of the protocol?

12/20/2011 -- I don't watch the show, usually. But, just yesterday as I watched briefly, there was another of these first comer things. Remember the stories about this past Friday after Thanksgiving. Mob scenes, macings, and other things of this ilk; that is, private enterprise encouraging such behavior (does it help them try to shin as holy - ah, we all know better). In this type of thing, a random drawing is the only fair way. Even on-line, there is not an infinite buffer. So, being kicked out due to  unavailable resource is more likely than not when the demand gets heavy. I would think that the good Dr. would try to help lead the internet wild west toward a more civilized state of affairs.

02/08/2011 -- The viewer received a note from the pillow company to an inquiry about their method as the viewer had received a confirmation. The following is taken from the note:

• We received over 10k registrations in the first few minutes alone. All received confirmation e-mails indicating that we received their registration. Only the first 200 registrants will receive an e-mail in the following days indicating that they’ve won. You still have a chance to win an Essentia Natural Memory Foam pillow by visiting. www.myessentia.com/dr-oz/another

If you follow the link, you'll see that the requirement is to comment on a you-tube video.

Modified: 06/17/2014

What topics for this blog?

While reviewing the stats that are provided by blogger, it was interesting to see which posts have had the most readership (see below) since the inception (not! see Remarks 04/28/2011). The two most-read posts dealt with a 787 issue and were written two years ago. The third most-read post was written about 3 1/2 years ago about the same subject.

As an aside, the first two are also the 'most-read' for the past month. So, the topic remains timely. That program is only one of several from which we can extract lessons to be learned. Of course, that oops abound is just a fact of human life. What we hope is that we get better in preventing oops that are not necessary, perhaps minimize the effect of those which cannot be entirely removed (such as the recent storm which went across the entire USA, leaving some unprepared though there were many warnings), and so forth.

The below list can be extended, but let's take the top six, for now. The date of the post and percent of total reads (aside: the counter was activated a little over a year ago) are included.

• Wing and body - (July 1, 2009 - 7.3% --- 29.6%) -- any multi-disciplinary effort has to bridge ontological, communication, and other gaps. Our hope that the computational, and its mathematical basis, paradigm will do so is a panacea. Except for this, there is a general dumbing down that results from the spirit squish (see first bullet) related to projections (we'll go into this further); the corresponding lifts cannot but trample further.
• Confoundness (Poll 7) - (July 14, 2009 - 4.1% --- 16.2%) -- Despite efforts at solving non-linear systems (link here) appearing to be magic, things are solved with linear approximates (hear this, folks). It's a type of dumbing down (yes, guys). And, we never 'simultaneously' anything, even with parallelism. That continues to be a pipe dream. Now, quantum computing might add an interesting wrinkle, or two, if we can handle entanglement. Yes, the program seems to have tried to disentangle by outhousing. Did it work? Perhaps, the students of industry will be thankful for this chance to observe the effects of relaxing along almost all directions of decision. For one thing, there seems to be an upper bound (though, not by necessity -- as the company's engineers, and knowledge workers, seem to have pulled this thing out of its perilous state).
• Cramming for the exam - (Sept 13, 2007 - 3.4% --- 11.2%) -- There was an article (find this) about the first two years of college being wasted, on partying and such. Too, people learn from examples and tests for which there is an answer. Underdetermination is solely underappreciated; has always been, it seems. Hubris breeds its own set of oops.
• Truth, fiction and finance - (Oct 21, 2008 - 2.6% --- 10.2%) -- Ah, is it any better now? Have you seen anyone's knuckles rapped by the ruler-holding nun?
• Here we go again - (June 24, 2009 - 2.0% --- 9.0%) -- Those bullets hold up. Perhaps, there'll be an attempt at focusing on each of those and at extending the scope beyond the theme of that post.
• Facebook, as metaphor - (Sept 22, 2010 - 1.6% --- 5.3%) -- computational ubiquity, and inter-connectedness, are going to be a given in the future. However, how will this play out, who will exploit whom, how will things work? Many questions abound. No doubt, there'll be oodles of oops (it might be fun to collect some of these that we have seen so far -- such as supplier driven changes (see below)). The blogger has been involved with computational mathematics for decades, saw intimations of some of these modern sights along the way, appreciates the progress (who of the younger set could claim that?), bewails some of the emergent idiocy (goes along with the oops, I guess), and so forth. Hence, expect a continuation of this theme.

Here are some facts related to the blog: the first post was Aug 31, 2007; as of this post, there have been 197 posts; the most posts were done in 2008; the most posts per month was October 2008; financial oops outweigh those of engineering, by far and for many reasons.

---

What does the use of 'supplier driven' mean? Perhaps, the 'better mouse trap' motivation is a key one in which innovators present the results of their efforts. Some of these will become fads and attract a lot of attention. At the same time, some of the lucky will become enormously rich.

Those things that don't become fads may have several reasons for not being such, like being ahead of their time, too difficult, and more. In any case, the total of the inventions might allow some means for determining what will last, as in having an intrinsic value. How often do things of 'intrinsic value' ever map to fads? Sometimes the answer to that is frightful.

Is there a reasonable way to try to direct toward a better future? That is another question. A view of technically minded (meaning, those who can - not necessarily only the younger set has this attribute, by the way -- not exclaiming too much that notion, either) pokes fun at the manager types (those who cannot do, except through the efforts of others -- sheesh, you supposed best-and-brightest, we ought not be expected to royal pabody osculate, okay?) say: I don't know what I want until I see it. The usual smart-arsed reaction is to bring a rock.

There is something to the fact that we don't know, until something is tried (to wit, the cramming the exam bullet above). Oh, I know, engineering's prowess with the computational might show otherwise. Well, no, it does not - quasi-empirical claim.

Progress has been attained on the backs of many and at the ultimate peril of a not-small number. That is, oops are one way to learn. An adage suggests that we ought to learn from what oops others face. But, how many bodies and how much time do we have? Ah, yes, managers, out-housing seems to extend any limits there to something uncountable, does it not?

Well, 'nuf for now, expect several posts dealing with these notions.

Remarks:

04/28/2011 -- There is an overall count for all reads that goes back to inception. However, for individual posts, the 'all time' count is for the past year. Percentage numbers for the most-read posts updated with the new basis, e.g. Wing and body went from 7.3% to 29.6%.

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test). While we're at it, we ought to look at Canadian banks, again.

Modified: 08/24/2011