According to the "9/11 Commission Report" (see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1 1.htm), "...the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management." The US government had "tended to underestimate a threat that grew ever greater...Insight for the future is thus not easy to apply in practice. It is hardest to mount a major effort while a problem still seems minor. Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier-but it then may be too late."
Just as the media blasted the Administration for failing to detect and prevent 9/11, folks are now complaining this same administration was too trusting of limited intelligence, which led them to war with Iraq. Given a post-9/11 world, intelligence on possible threats was taken more seriously, because THE RISK OF MISSING A KEY THREAT INDICATOR WAS UNACCEPTABLE!
Place yourself in this situation: someone breaks into your house and steals all your computers (gasp). When the police investigator asks you if you've seen anyone suspicious in the neighborhood, you admit you haven't been watching that closely. The next day, you see an unfamiliar driving in your neighborhood. Honestly, what do you think? Is someone casing your house? Is the driver more a threat now that you've been robbed? You don't know who broke into your house, but I bet you're more aware of the possible dangers!
Now back to the real issue...the US was attacked! After 9/11, lots of critics asked "why didn't you see all the warnings?" Every piece of intelligence was then looked at with a new perspective. Even if the Administration was looking at just shadows and ghosts, their best information they had showed that Iraq was a threat. The "Neighborhood Watch" signs weren't working anymore. The added security patrols weren't working anymore. The perceived threats still existed, and the President AND CONGRESS took the actions they thought were proper!
It seems like everyone is blaming the President for using a level of imagination the 9/11 Commission accused them of not using prior to the attacks in 2001!
Re:Beauty for beauty's sake makes crappy software
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
> Ever designed a bridge?...only get one chance to get it right...
Bridge design is based on the thousands of years of bridge research, design, building, failing, and retrying. Just like bridge building has evolved from basic research (long enough, strong enough, etc) through standardized materials and techniques (steel, rivets, suspension cable, etc) to artistic efforts (Verizano Narrows in NY), software has evolved from trial and error through common languages (Fortran, COBOL, C++) and into artistic efforts, which rely on the research of the past. I'd argue some software can permit zero failures (Space Shuttle flight control) while others should but don't (PC operating systems:>).
Software design is evolving. We're not at the bridge-building stage yet, but we're getting there.
Re:Not this stupid 'programming is art' BS again!
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
Software development is evolving, just like any other scientific effort. For example, early humans found their travel blocked by rivers. At first, they found dead trees had bridged the gap, and they crossed where able. Next, humans tried to duplicate the random nature of tree bridges chopping them down to fall across the river. Some trees were tall enough and spanned the chasm. Others were too short and fell in. Still others were long enough, but not strong enough to bear the load. These _bridge scientists_ were performing basic bridge research. They didn't care how pretty their work was, as long as it functioned. This equates to the early computer science efforts in software: ugly but functional.
After the bridge scientists came _bridge engineers_, who formalized bridge building. Engineers tried different materials: rock, brick, lumber, metals. Some failed, others succeeded, but the result was a library of repeatable engineering techniques others could use to build bridges without re-learning all history's mistakes. I believe software design is currently in this stage. Standardized languages, modules, measurements, certifications, etc., all indicate a science evolving through engineering.
Next is the artistic part of our profession. Just like bridge building, some bridges are functional but severely ugly. Other bridges clearly show the artistic nature of the designer. The Golden Gate Bridge and some ancient roman bridges attest to the artistic nature of bridge engineering. Today, graphic interfaces, natural speech processing and code libraries all indicate software engineering is also evolving into artistic work.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the "9/11 Commission Report" (see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1 1.htm), "...the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management." The US government had "tended to underestimate a threat that grew ever greater...Insight for the future is thus not easy to apply in practice. It is hardest to mount a major effort while a problem still seems minor. Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier-but it then may be too late."
Just as the media blasted the Administration for failing to detect and prevent 9/11, folks are now complaining this same administration was too trusting of limited intelligence, which led them to war with Iraq. Given a post-9/11 world, intelligence on possible threats was taken more seriously, because THE RISK OF MISSING A KEY THREAT INDICATOR WAS UNACCEPTABLE!
Place yourself in this situation: someone breaks into your house and steals all your computers (gasp). When the police investigator asks you if you've seen anyone suspicious in the neighborhood, you admit you haven't been watching that closely. The next day, you see an unfamiliar driving in your neighborhood. Honestly, what do you think? Is someone casing your house? Is the driver more a threat now that you've been robbed? You don't know who broke into your house, but I bet you're more aware of the possible dangers!
Now back to the real issue...the US was attacked! After 9/11, lots of critics asked "why didn't you see all the warnings?" Every piece of intelligence was then looked at with a new perspective. Even if the Administration was looking at just shadows and ghosts, their best information they had showed that Iraq was a threat. The "Neighborhood Watch" signs weren't working anymore. The added security patrols weren't working anymore. The perceived threats still existed, and the President AND CONGRESS took the actions they thought were proper!
It seems like everyone is blaming the President for using a level of imagination the 9/11 Commission accused them of not using prior to the attacks in 2001!
> Ever designed a bridge?...only get one chance to get it right... :>).
Bridge design is based on the thousands of years of bridge research, design, building, failing, and retrying. Just like bridge building has evolved from basic research (long enough, strong enough, etc) through standardized materials and techniques (steel, rivets, suspension cable, etc) to artistic efforts (Verizano Narrows in NY), software has evolved from trial and error through common languages (Fortran, COBOL, C++) and into artistic efforts, which rely on the research of the past. I'd argue some software can permit zero failures (Space Shuttle flight control) while others should but don't (PC operating systems
Software design is evolving. We're not at the bridge-building stage yet, but we're getting there.
Software development is evolving, just like any other scientific effort. For example, early humans found their travel blocked by rivers. At first, they found dead trees had bridged the gap, and they crossed where able. Next, humans tried to duplicate the random nature of tree bridges chopping them down to fall across the river. Some trees were tall enough and spanned the chasm. Others were too short and fell in. Still others were long enough, but not strong enough to bear the load. These _bridge scientists_ were performing basic bridge research. They didn't care how pretty their work was, as long as it functioned. This equates to the early computer science efforts in software: ugly but functional.
After the bridge scientists came _bridge engineers_, who formalized bridge building. Engineers tried different materials: rock, brick, lumber, metals. Some failed, others succeeded, but the result was a library of repeatable engineering techniques others could use to build bridges without re-learning all history's mistakes. I believe software design is currently in this stage. Standardized languages, modules, measurements, certifications, etc., all indicate a science evolving through engineering.
Next is the artistic part of our profession. Just like bridge building, some bridges are functional but severely ugly. Other bridges clearly show the artistic nature of the designer. The Golden Gate Bridge and some ancient roman bridges attest to the artistic nature of bridge engineering. Today, graphic interfaces, natural speech processing and code libraries all indicate software engineering is also evolving into artistic work.