You can only omit one run of zeros, because otherwise the length of each run would be ambiguous.
He thinks:: expands to precisely and exactly:0000: not what it really is, which is much closer to:(0 to 32 zero nybbles):
This is always about the second question I hear w/ regards to ipv6. The first is always "why : instead of . ?"
The funny is when people ask "OK so what is a class C address in ipv6 space, is it still a/24 or is it 3/4 of 128 that being a/96?" then you know its going to be a long discussion.
You clearly have not heard of our solution in the lab: use complex numbers for each octet.
Oh you also oppose the tyrrany of the powers-of-two addressing space? Excellent. Personally I've been working on an Egyptian fractions representation. Imagine the entire IP addressing space between the intervals of zero and one. And we'll never need a larger space, merely subdivide more aggressively. Regular expressions and routing tables are a bit tedious of course. But, string handling technology has been neglected for years by the tyrrany of floating point accelerators, its time for a new paradigm.
"OK, the static address of the printer is 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/87 + 1/67289, ok no problemo."
The reverse DNS would be pretty simple, that would be laserprinter.innitech.com AAAAAA 67289.87.6.2.in-addr.arpa. (don't forget the dot at the end)
The concept of router interface addresses needs some work, I'd go back to the DECNET thing and assign an address to the machine instead of the interface.
To subnet, merely add another term, so if my ISP is 1/2 + 1/98 + 1/102 (shorthand 2.98.102) they might assign me, 2.98.102.253. Then I assign my hosts with the final digit larger than 253. 2.98.102.253.512 might be my desktop.
It really is like it was designed by people who forget that DNS is not self-administering, and people have to deal with these things even if DNS has gone down.
You should be thankful they got rid of DNS A6 and stuck to AAAA records. Oh you'd really love those.
Once you set up your automation, the whole situation is really quite boring.
Make a 'Your Own IP' feature for the cell providers which gives you the option of your own unique IP. Everyone else can just pull from a rotating pool of ___ IPs.... as long as their phone works
And when you have more subscribers than IP space available...
Even RFC1918 space 10/8 if by some miracle of perfect efficiency were used 100% maybe in a giant worldwide VLAN, you'd only support 16 megacustomers. But thats small potatoes for the big monopoly cellphone providers.
Lets say you decide to steal the entire ipv4 space. thats only 4 billion cellphones, so 1/3 the population won't get one.
It turns out to be way more expense and work to patch around the limitations of ipv4 than to upgrade to ipv6 and be done with it.
All you needed to do was turn each segment of an IP address into a word sized ( 64 bit addressing ) or a long sized ( the magic 128 bit ) value instead of a byte sized value since:
2600000.35.1254.1785
Is one hell of a lot easier to remember then
2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334.
Whats your plan for delegated reverse DNS for a/48 allocation? (This should be interesting)
Why does it bother you what other people choose for a personal phone? If it's truly a personal phone, you can refuse to support it, given that they have a company phone as well.
He probably works at an android software development shop (just kidding...)
Here he could have gone to authorities and tried to protect the child that was living under his roof, but he went back to the birth father and say "hey man, you might want to know the potential danger your child is in..." (not an actual quote).
That was the speculative part.
In MI during a divorce case if you get a felony conviction you get zero of the estate instead of 50:50.
She's quite possibly going up for felony child endangerment, since she's willingly taking another mans son into the presence of a known wifebeater. It seems like an open and shut case...
The only way she has a chance at more than 0% of the estate, is to get him his own felony conviction...
Furthermore, it seems fairly obvious that he is the only person in the entire extended family whom is worthy of sole custody of the kid... dad 1 obviously was not according to his divorce judge, dad 2 is a known wifebeater, mom is probably going down for felony child endangerment... unless the mother can get dad 3 his own felony conviction, she's probably losing her kid.
The judge(s) are going to be pissed off, because family court is supposed to handle whom gets what share of the estate and where junior gets to live, not escalated it to criminal court by goofing around.
The other option would be to just plead guilty. Probably the judge will just give him a night behind bars or just let him go, if he's a first "offender".
Its a felony. In MI during a divorce that means instead of getting 50% of the estate, he will get zero.
Depends a heck of a lot on the size of the estate. If its one of those $1 houses in Detroit then I would worry a heck of a lot more about one night in jail. If they were multimillionaires, then I'd worry more about the bank account.
Of course, if one of them thinks herself a security genius for writing her password in a book, and the other one thinks himself a security genius for reading a book, that has certain implications for their intelligence, which has certain implications for their income and net worth, which is therefore reasonably predicted to be not very high. Like maybe that shared computer is their entire estate...
I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution..... It sounds personal.
In MI if he gets convicted, she will get 100% of the estate. Otherwise its simple 50%:50%.
He found great evidence that the mother is unsuited to have custody of the children, a sacrilege of the highest order, so its no surprise the female prosecutor is out to punish him by any means necessary.
It would be like if I found scientific proof that god does not exist, then I'd probably be in prison for defacing currency, because I made all that "in god we trust" added to our money in the 1950s a false statement.
As an AC posted above, the likely reason for the felony charge is because that's the only way his bitch ex gets more than half of the community property. This isn't about justice; far from it.
Another part of the strategy is it used to be fairly standard practice to accuse the husband of violence in ALL divorce cases, in order to get that felony thing going. Nothing sounds worse than a restraining order except a felony. Such that there are some pitiful attempts at reeling in false accusations during divorce proceedings. Pitiful, but at least an attempt.
Anyway, this shows the womans lawyer is really earning their pay, because its almost the ideal accusation, if he's not guilty well that's not her fault because there is now new jurisprudence about email, and if he is guilty then they win. Either way the guy has already completely lost this specific battle (not that he can't go on to win the war...)
Also, consider if your wife shoots and kills somebody. They won't imprison you (unless of course you were in on it).
However, they WILL take away money from the husband's bank accounts, if, as usual, there is a punitive fine intended to bankrupt to go along with the prison sentence.
The husband and kids (if any) will have all their money taken away, possibly lose their cars and home... well, whatever the defense lawyers don't get first, anyway...
Plus, the laptop likely falls under "joint property," so it's legal for him to access the laptop in general
The paper notebook, with the password written in it, sitting next to the computer, is also joint property.
I am told by a close friend that when he got divorced in MI his lawyer advised him that technically under the law he could have asked the judge to award him half her underwear by dollar value of specific pieces just to be a complete A-hole, but appearing as bloodthirsty as possibly is generally an excellent way to get the judge into a bad mood. This was part of a discussion about the lawyer talking him out of demanding half the cheap nearly worthless silverware and dishes, or something like that.
I'm guessing that asking the judge to define whom owns a previously shared specific single paper notebook is an excellent way to piss off the judge, assuming the judge isn't already annoyed and they're hoping to go for broke or something.
Actually that's a pretty good first level short summary analysis of tax law, inheritance law, bankruptcy law (depending a bit on state), several legal liability issues, some real estate and titled property law (think "car title"), a wide variety of medical ethics law such as DNR orders, and how the right of self incrimination at least somewhat extends to spouses in court. There are probably other areas but thats just off the top of my head.
Being a summary, means only an idiot would think it is the entire story for all situations, but it IS pretty much the base assumption of a heck of a lot of law, its the assumption you should start with and then refine. Following the rules of the game doesn't mean you like either the rules of the game or playing the game, it just means... you're following the rules of the game... Thats all I mean, not that I agree with it.
So, enough fact, now some opinion, which is, at the core of it, the big problem with the whole gay marriage thing, is that a basic right of many of our laws is being denied to people pretty much because "a living dude, whom pompously claims to speak for a powerful invisible unprovable guy in the sky, claims some people are bad because of how the guy in the sky made them, yet both the dude doing the talking and the guy in the sky are so incredibly weak and unimportant that they can't actually do anything about the people they don't like, so we'd like a law so policemen with guns can force them to live under our sad, twisted worldview" Not that I am showing any bias about that issue, naaaaaah.
More like, is storing your password in a semi-secure at best web browser on a shared computer running an well known to be insecure OS when better alternatives are available, more like locked and secured door or more like a wide open gate into a public space very much like a park?
However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.
Err, not exactly. Slashdot-lawyering is always fun to watch.
In grotesque summary of a website's summary at the federal level "The statute is essentially about stealing mail from the Post Office.". In other words the feds pretty much don't care as long as there are no post office employees or post office property directly involved.
In the computer world that we live in, we all know and understand there is a desperate goal to re-legislate all our crimes with the words "on a computer" suffixed at great expense and publicity, etc. But in the real physical world, they mostly use general statutes which only tangentially happen to involve a piece of physical mail in this specific case.
So you might get charged with stealing, if you stole someones mail. Or identity theft if you do that, with someone elses mail. Or maybe some weird insider trading law, if thats what you do based on some stolen mail.
In other words the trial will be about them doing some naughtyness, and the stolen mail will be a piece of evidence. But there will be no charge of "opening the mail"
That being said, just as anyone can be civil sued for anything at any time by any one, the same applies to criminal court, although that doesn't mean it won't be thrown out with laughter by the judge, or involved as the start or end of a plea bargain, or tossed out on appeal by a sane judge.
Agreed, your US cite points to a journalist site, which points to an excellent blog which I'm already familiar with, which finally points to a journal article.
Here, let me give you a quote from the article:
"Alternatively, this calculation means that we are unable to assert whether the true value of the EROI of corn ethanol is greater than one."
Fixating on a tiny part of the discussion leads to errors in conclusion. The very short story is "1.07". A little longer answer is "95% condence interval was 1.07 ± 0.2". An even longer answer is "The results from our meta-error analysis indicated that the average EROI for corn ethanol was 1.07 with a standard error of 0.1". And probably the most accurate, and longest answer from the article is the paragraph above, which gives a completely different conclusion that the EROEI is probably about "one".
And this article describes how it is the absolutely best case scenario with plenty of positive assumptions for only the finest soil and the highest technology and best weather.
Real world, they'd be lucky to pull off an EROEI of half that, or 0.5. Hence my "two barrels in, one out" summary is probably not all that far off from the article data.
Um, OK, whatever, industrial agribusiness relies on petrodiesel and petroleum based insecticides.
Hence the "barrels of crude equivalent" rather than "barrels of crude".
Possibly as many as a tenth of a percent of vehicles on the road where I live burn compressed natural gas. Mostly buses and service vehicles. I am told they start beautifully in cold weather. Also obviously furnaces are available in either natgas or fuel oil options.
Crude and natgas do not just coincidentally share some applications, but you can actually convert one into the other, at considerable energy cost, of course. Crude is mostly just a long chain methane, more or less.
Thats why its fair to pool them together as "barrel equivalents".
Plus, since they are working with Uranium, everything gets hot and becomes rather hard to handle, repair and dispose of.
Hex is not very impressively radioactive. Not pour it on your breakfast cereal harmless, but not very impressive at all. It is almost exactly fiestaware breakfast cereal bowl level of scary. It is however horrifically toxic and usually has some unreacted HF in the process stream.
Its about a zillion times more likely a typical accident will chemically dissolve your flesh, rather than radiation burns.
I think you are also describing neutron activation which is not relevant at a U fuel processing plant. A power reactor repair facility, sure, not a fuel plant. Standard slashdot car analogy would be car batteries don't work well when they're cold or three years old, so a gasoline refinery probably doesn't work well in the winter or three years after it is built.
The assumption with machines is that they don't lie to you.
Naaah what got them was every mechanical engineer whom spins stuff around, from steam turbines to windmills to centrifuges knows the likely failure modes are, in order: 1) material failure / bad specs / bad material / bad machining / bad maintenance intervals 2) Everything else in the freaking universe from earthquake tremors to houseflys in the process stream to electrical surges 3) RPM / timing inaccuracy (failure is common, inaccuracy is incomprehensible)
So they started with line item #1 and probably spent a lot of engineering time on #2 before it was learned it was #3 all along.
Slashdot Mirror
Think how much time you'll save yourself from FB if you delete it now. I mean you could spend that time on Slashdot instead!
Farming trolls? Serverfarm-ville?
safe and stable IPv4 networks.
Do you oxymoron often?
you omit parts of the address ... but ONLY once!
You can only omit one run of zeros, because otherwise the length of each run would be ambiguous.
He thinks :: expands to precisely and exactly :0000: not what it really is, which is much closer to :(0 to 32 zero nybbles):
This is always about the second question I hear w/ regards to ipv6. The first is always "why : instead of . ?"
The funny is when people ask "OK so what is a class C address in ipv6 space, is it still a /24 or is it 3/4 of 128 that being a /96?" then you know its going to be a long discussion.
You clearly have not heard of our solution in the lab: use complex numbers for each octet.
Oh you also oppose the tyrrany of the powers-of-two addressing space? Excellent. Personally I've been working on an Egyptian fractions representation. Imagine the entire IP addressing space between the intervals of zero and one. And we'll never need a larger space, merely subdivide more aggressively. Regular expressions and routing tables are a bit tedious of course. But, string handling technology has been neglected for years by the tyrrany of floating point accelerators, its time for a new paradigm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction
"OK, the static address of the printer is 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/87 + 1/67289, ok no problemo."
The reverse DNS would be pretty simple, that would be laserprinter.innitech.com AAAAAA 67289.87.6.2.in-addr.arpa. (don't forget the dot at the end)
The concept of router interface addresses needs some work, I'd go back to the DECNET thing and assign an address to the machine instead of the interface.
To subnet, merely add another term, so if my ISP is 1/2 + 1/98 + 1/102 (shorthand 2.98.102) they might assign me, 2.98.102.253. Then I assign my hosts with the final digit larger than 253. 2.98.102.253.512 might be my desktop.
Do any of E-mta (that the cable force you to rent (if you have cable phone) do IPV6?)
Can you find one that does not? I believe a DOCSIS 3.0 certification requirement is ipv6.
As with cellphones, the question is rarely what the manufacturer made possible, but what your provider felt like allowing you to do.
it is standing in the way of a real and workable solution to the problem.
So no, IPv6 is not the solution. IPv6 has simply become part of the problem.
So let me guess the solution ... "AOL keywords"?
It really is like it was designed by people who forget that DNS is not self-administering, and people have to deal with these things even if DNS has gone down.
You should be thankful they got rid of DNS A6 and stuck to AAAA records. Oh you'd really love those.
Once you set up your automation, the whole situation is really quite boring.
Why not four UTF-32/UCS-4 characters instead of four decimal numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32/UCS-4
Make a 'Your Own IP' feature for the cell providers which gives you the option of your own unique IP. Everyone else can just pull from a rotating pool of ___ IPs .... as long as their phone works
And when you have more subscribers than IP space available...
Even RFC1918 space 10/8 if by some miracle of perfect efficiency were used 100% maybe in a giant worldwide VLAN, you'd only support 16 megacustomers. But thats small potatoes for the big monopoly cellphone providers.
Lets say you decide to steal the entire ipv4 space. thats only 4 billion cellphones, so 1/3 the population won't get one.
It turns out to be way more expense and work to patch around the limitations of ipv4 than to upgrade to ipv6 and be done with it.
All you needed to do was turn each segment of an IP address into a word sized ( 64 bit addressing ) or a long sized ( the magic 128 bit ) value instead of a byte sized value since:
2600000.35.1254.1785
Is one hell of a lot easier to remember then
2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334.
Whats your plan for delegated reverse DNS for a /48 allocation? (This should be interesting)
If IP4 space isn't being used it should be reclaimed by ARIN
Prove "isn't being used" in a cost effective non-spoofable manner. I guarantee its impossible.
For that matter, just defining "isn't being used" is going to be a heck of a job.
Why does it bother you what other people choose for a personal phone? If it's truly a personal phone, you can refuse to support it, given that they have a company phone as well.
He probably works at an android software development shop (just kidding...)
Here he could have gone to authorities and tried to protect the child that was living under his roof, but he went back to the birth father and say "hey man, you might want to know the potential danger your child is in..." (not an actual quote).
That was the speculative part.
In MI during a divorce case if you get a felony conviction you get zero of the estate instead of 50:50.
She's quite possibly going up for felony child endangerment, since she's willingly taking another mans son into the presence of a known wifebeater. It seems like an open and shut case...
The only way she has a chance at more than 0% of the estate, is to get him his own felony conviction...
Furthermore, it seems fairly obvious that he is the only person in the entire extended family whom is worthy of sole custody of the kid... dad 1 obviously was not according to his divorce judge, dad 2 is a known wifebeater, mom is probably going down for felony child endangerment ... unless the mother can get dad 3 his own felony conviction, she's probably losing her kid.
The judge(s) are going to be pissed off, because family court is supposed to handle whom gets what share of the estate and where junior gets to live, not escalated it to criminal court by goofing around.
The other option would be to just plead guilty. Probably the judge will just give him a night behind bars or just let him go, if he's a first "offender".
Its a felony. In MI during a divorce that means instead of getting 50% of the estate, he will get zero.
Depends a heck of a lot on the size of the estate. If its one of those $1 houses in Detroit then I would worry a heck of a lot more about one night in jail. If they were multimillionaires, then I'd worry more about the bank account.
Of course, if one of them thinks herself a security genius for writing her password in a book, and the other one thinks himself a security genius for reading a book, that has certain implications for their intelligence, which has certain implications for their income and net worth, which is therefore reasonably predicted to be not very high. Like maybe that shared computer is their entire estate...
I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution. .... It sounds personal.
In MI if he gets convicted, she will get 100% of the estate. Otherwise its simple 50%:50%.
He found great evidence that the mother is unsuited to have custody of the children, a sacrilege of the highest order, so its no surprise the female prosecutor is out to punish him by any means necessary.
It would be like if I found scientific proof that god does not exist, then I'd probably be in prison for defacing currency, because I made all that "in god we trust" added to our money in the 1950s a false statement.
As an AC posted above, the likely reason for the felony charge is because that's the only way his bitch ex gets more than half of the community property. This isn't about justice; far from it.
Another part of the strategy is it used to be fairly standard practice to accuse the husband of violence in ALL divorce cases, in order to get that felony thing going. Nothing sounds worse than a restraining order except a felony. Such that there are some pitiful attempts at reeling in false accusations during divorce proceedings. Pitiful, but at least an attempt.
Anyway, this shows the womans lawyer is really earning their pay, because its almost the ideal accusation, if he's not guilty well that's not her fault because there is now new jurisprudence about email, and if he is guilty then they win. Either way the guy has already completely lost this specific battle (not that he can't go on to win the war...)
Also, consider if your wife shoots and kills somebody. They won't imprison you (unless of course you were in on it).
However, they WILL take away money from the husband's bank accounts, if, as usual, there is a punitive fine intended to bankrupt to go along with the prison sentence.
The husband and kids (if any) will have all their money taken away, possibly lose their cars and home... well, whatever the defense lawyers don't get first, anyway...
Plus, the laptop likely falls under "joint property," so it's legal for him to access the laptop in general
The paper notebook, with the password written in it, sitting next to the computer, is also joint property.
I am told by a close friend that when he got divorced in MI his lawyer advised him that technically under the law he could have asked the judge to award him half her underwear by dollar value of specific pieces just to be a complete A-hole, but appearing as bloodthirsty as possibly is generally an excellent way to get the judge into a bad mood. This was part of a discussion about the lawyer talking him out of demanding half the cheap nearly worthless silverware and dishes, or something like that.
I'm guessing that asking the judge to define whom owns a previously shared specific single paper notebook is an excellent way to piss off the judge, assuming the judge isn't already annoyed and they're hoping to go for broke or something.
It is unless your spouse is your property.
Actually that's a pretty good first level short summary analysis of tax law, inheritance law, bankruptcy law (depending a bit on state), several legal liability issues, some real estate and titled property law (think "car title"), a wide variety of medical ethics law such as DNR orders, and how the right of self incrimination at least somewhat extends to spouses in court. There are probably other areas but thats just off the top of my head.
Being a summary, means only an idiot would think it is the entire story for all situations, but it IS pretty much the base assumption of a heck of a lot of law, its the assumption you should start with and then refine. Following the rules of the game doesn't mean you like either the rules of the game or playing the game, it just means... you're following the rules of the game... Thats all I mean, not that I agree with it.
So, enough fact, now some opinion, which is, at the core of it, the big problem with the whole gay marriage thing, is that a basic right of many of our laws is being denied to people pretty much because "a living dude, whom pompously claims to speak for a powerful invisible unprovable guy in the sky, claims some people are bad because of how the guy in the sky made them, yet both the dude doing the talking and the guy in the sky are so incredibly weak and unimportant that they can't actually do anything about the people they don't like, so we'd like a law so policemen with guns can force them to live under our sad, twisted worldview" Not that I am showing any bias about that issue, naaaaaah.
Is email perceived to be a letter or a postcard?
More like, is storing your password in a semi-secure at best web browser on a shared computer running an well known to be insecure OS when better alternatives are available, more like locked and secured door or more like a wide open gate into a public space very much like a park?
Letter of the law? I believe so.
However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.
Err, not exactly. Slashdot-lawyering is always fun to watch.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6293417_federal-mail-not-addressed-you_.html
In grotesque summary of a website's summary at the federal level "The statute is essentially about stealing mail from the Post Office.". In other words the feds pretty much don't care as long as there are no post office employees or post office property directly involved.
In the computer world that we live in, we all know and understand there is a desperate goal to re-legislate all our crimes with the words "on a computer" suffixed at great expense and publicity, etc. But in the real physical world, they mostly use general statutes which only tangentially happen to involve a piece of physical mail in this specific case.
So you might get charged with stealing, if you stole someones mail. Or identity theft if you do that, with someone elses mail. Or maybe some weird insider trading law, if thats what you do based on some stolen mail.
In other words the trial will be about them doing some naughtyness, and the stolen mail will be a piece of evidence. But there will be no charge of "opening the mail"
That being said, just as anyone can be civil sued for anything at any time by any one, the same applies to criminal court, although that doesn't mean it won't be thrown out with laughter by the judge, or involved as the start or end of a plea bargain, or tossed out on appeal by a sane judge.
Citation, citation, citation, or its Bullshit!
Agreed, your US cite points to a journalist site, which points to an excellent blog which I'm already familiar with, which finally points to a journal article.
Here, let me give you a quote from the article:
"Alternatively, this calculation means that we are unable to assert whether the true value of the EROI of corn ethanol is greater than one."
Fixating on a tiny part of the discussion leads to errors in conclusion. The very short story is "1.07". A little longer answer is "95% condence interval was 1.07 ± 0.2". An even longer answer is "The results from our meta-error analysis indicated that the average EROI for corn ethanol was 1.07 with a standard error of 0.1". And probably the most accurate, and longest answer from the article is the paragraph above, which gives a completely different conclusion that the EROEI is probably about "one".
And this article describes how it is the absolutely best case scenario with plenty of positive assumptions for only the finest soil and the highest technology and best weather.
Real world, they'd be lucky to pull off an EROEI of half that, or 0.5. Hence my "two barrels in, one out" summary is probably not all that far off from the article data.
Actually ethanol doesn't eat up that much crude.
But it eats up tons of natural gas.
Um, OK, whatever, industrial agribusiness relies on petrodiesel and petroleum based insecticides.
Hence the "barrels of crude equivalent" rather than "barrels of crude".
Possibly as many as a tenth of a percent of vehicles on the road where I live burn compressed natural gas. Mostly buses and service vehicles. I am told they start beautifully in cold weather. Also obviously furnaces are available in either natgas or fuel oil options.
Crude and natgas do not just coincidentally share some applications, but you can actually convert one into the other, at considerable energy cost, of course. Crude is mostly just a long chain methane, more or less.
Thats why its fair to pool them together as "barrel equivalents".
Plus, since they are working with Uranium, everything gets hot and becomes rather hard to handle, repair and dispose of.
Hex is not very impressively radioactive. Not pour it on your breakfast cereal harmless, but not very impressive at all. It is almost exactly fiestaware breakfast cereal bowl level of scary. It is however horrifically toxic and usually has some unreacted HF in the process stream.
Its about a zillion times more likely a typical accident will chemically dissolve your flesh, rather than radiation burns.
I think you are also describing neutron activation which is not relevant at a U fuel processing plant. A power reactor repair facility, sure, not a fuel plant. Standard slashdot car analogy would be car batteries don't work well when they're cold or three years old, so a gasoline refinery probably doesn't work well in the winter or three years after it is built.
The assumption with machines is that they don't lie to you.
Naaah what got them was every mechanical engineer whom spins stuff around, from steam turbines to windmills to centrifuges knows the likely failure modes are, in order:
1) material failure / bad specs / bad material / bad machining / bad maintenance intervals
2) Everything else in the freaking universe from earthquake tremors to houseflys in the process stream to electrical surges
3) RPM / timing inaccuracy (failure is common, inaccuracy is incomprehensible)
So they started with line item #1 and probably spent a lot of engineering time on #2 before it was learned it was #3 all along.