Random photos, comics, etc.

[Jim Cassedy]

I don't care how new and wonderful some technology is. I don't care if it's old and
outdated as long as it is maintained and the people in charge of it know how to use it.

I happen to like CP-650's and still work with them at a number of venues. But just last week I got into a
lively disagreement with a friend here who here who was insisting that a CP-650 "wouldn't even make
a good boat anchor or door stop" Local environmental regulations prevent me for testing the '650's
efficacy as a boat anchor, but as I've proven many times over- - it makes a perfectly good doorstop!
DolbyDoorStop.jpg
. . and it actually works better than my previous door-stop:
ArriflexDorStop.jpg
I kept tripping over the lens on my Arri doorstop.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

A couple of Colbol tablets in the morning... and you should be good to go.

[Frank Cox]

There's nothing wrong with COBOL.

https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/

I can't say that I've written anything significant with it yet, but I find it interesting to play around with.

[Randy Stankey]

I don't care how new and wonderful some technology is. I don't care if it's old and outdated as long as it is maintained and the people in charge of it know how to use it. Instead, I believe that people who use technology must know how to do the job WITHOUT computers before they start wanking around with machines. That doesn't mean that people have to do it as well as computers can do it. That's why we have computers! Right? Still, people need to understand the fundamentals of the job they are doing BEFORE they start using computers.

You need to know how to do basic arithmetic (or at least understand the concepts) BEFORE you can use a computer spreadsheet to track your household budget. More importantly, you need to understand what a spreadsheet is and how it works compared to other applications, such as a database. Maybe a database is a better solution for the work you want to accomplish. Maybe a database is the better solution but you won't know that unless you understand the basics of BOTH databases AND spreadsheets. I often see people using spreadsheets when they should be using databases, or vice-versa, who have trouble getting work done because they used the wrong solution.

When I worked on an electronics assembly line, we had a large library of solder stencils that were used in automated silk screen machines to lay down solder paste before the individual components are installed. It was important to select the right stencil for the job at hand and there might be slightly different versions for individual jobs. Using the wrong stencil probably means that there will be extensive rework or even scrapped parts.

Stencils were kept on rows of racks and each one had a unique ID number. They all needed to be arranged by row, shelf and slot numbers so that a person could easily find them. This girl from the front office put all the information in a spreadsheet but couldn't keep things organized. There were cases where we had jobs to do and little time to complete them but nobody could find the stencils even after searching the spreadsheet for an hour. Finally, I was asked to reorganize all the data so that people could do their jobs. I took all the existing data, transferred it to a database (using Libre Office) and set up a custom search page so that all you needed to do was type in the customer's ID number and the computer would return a list of available stencils and their locations in the library. You looked down the list and found the item that matched your job. I even included a "Checked-Out" field that told you whether the stencil was in use and what line it was supposed to be running on. It took me a couple of days to do the basic work and the balance of a week to get all the wrinkles ironed out but, when I was done, stencils that took an hour to find (if you could find them at all) could, now, be found in just a few minutes.

The problem was that other people didn't understand the difference between the way a database works and the way a spreadsheet works and it took over a month before they figured out how to use it. I made the thing dead simple. There was only one field on the "search" page. The user only had to type in the customer's name or ID number. You could search either one, interchangeably. You put in your search term, hit the "search" button and the computer gave you a list of items that matched your request. You looked down the list (usually only three or four items) then clicked the check box next to the one you wanted. Hit the "select" button and a small ticket printer on the counter would spit out a slip showing the location of the stencil you needed. You take that ticket to the library, find the row, shelf and slot you want and pull out the stencil. You write your employee number and the date on the back of the ticket and leave it in the slot where the stencil belongs. When you have the right stencil, you enter which line you took it to in the database and you're done. If ever a worker can't find the item they are looking for there is a slip of paper with somebody's name on it so that they can go ask and there is also an entry in the database showing the last time it was used and where.

Nobody understood the problem, in the first place, and they didn't understand the different kinds of software that could be used to solve the problem but, still, you had people fussing around with half-baked solutions that cost more in time and resources than was necessary. In fact, I had people complaining that the the original database was "gone." They couldn't understand that, technically speaking, a database and a spreadsheet use the same basic data storage format and that the main difference is what way you access that information. There was one person who complained so much that I had to make a "list" view of the database that looked like a spreadsheet in order to shut them up.

Wouldn't you know it... Whenever that person used the database, they never printed tickets, they never used the "checked-out" feature and nobody could find things after that person's shit was over.

It was all because of one person who did not understand the fundamentals of the job they were being asked to do and, instead tried to use half-baked solutions to solve a relatively simple problem.

From what I heard, some of the FAA's computer systems still run on COBOL. Yes! That's old and outdated! I'm sure that they badly need an upgrade!

The thing is that, if you have people who understand the fundamentals of the jobs they want to do and they understand the systems they work on, it is quite possible to get things done almost as efficiently as if they were using state-of-the-art technology.

If the idiot who crashed the FAA computer system had understood (and obeyed) one simple rule: BACK UP YOUR FILES BEFORE YOU START! The whole thing probably wouldn't have happened.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

The problem with the FAA is that in most cases the equipment is very old. 15 to 20 years is a very long time for a computer. That was the case with the radar systems, but those have since been upgraded.

[Leo Enticknap]

That's what I remember, too. The FAA screw-up was either because there were insufficient safeguards built into the system, or person responsible failed to use them, to prevent a minor error from taking an entire, nationally mission critical, IT system down. Southwest's was because their system simply had not been designed and built to be able to do what was asked of it: figure out the logistics of having to cancel thousands of flights at once, and move aircraft and their crew to the right places for when the weather enabled operations to restart. It could do that for a few dozen, but not almost their entire operation, which was what that extreme weather event threw at it. In the end, they had no other option but to "push ctrl+alt+delete on the entire airline," as one commentator put it, pick a day in the future to restart, cancel all revenue-earning operations until then, and move specific planes and people to where the timetable needed them at the start of that day.

In some ways the FAA vulnerability is more worrying, because it begs the questions as to what other large IT systems we depend on for everyday life to function could be brought down purely by a junior or mid-career tech not paying 100% attention during a maintenance task. Southwest's was essentially the same thing as the complaints that are thrown at Britain's railways when there is serious snow in London every 4-5 years and the commuter lines are all f****d up: sure, they could invest billions in buying and maintaining snow clearing equipment, but what would the traveling public prefer - paying more for their tickets all the time, or accepting that once every 4-5 years, there will be a few days on which it'll be difficult to get into the office?

[Randy Stankey]

I thought that happened because some idiot was working on a live database without backing up his files, first, and borked the system.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

We know from Southwest's difficulties over Christmas that their IT systems can be a little, shall we say, idiosynchratic!

They likely know where I'm able to sit on the plane because I paid extra for that. I bought the early boarding supplement, because it guarantees that I won't have to gate check my carry-on. When traveling for work, if my checked bag (if I'm going to be OOT long enough to need to bring one) goes missing, then it's an annoyance, but not a tragedy: I can always buy some cheap and nasty clothes from the local Walmart on arrival. They won't get me onto the runway at National Fashion Week, but they would prevent me from being arrested for public nudity. But if I have to gate check the bag containing my laptop and other essentials and that goes missing, I'm dead in the water at my destination. At $25 per leg, a regular Southwest ticket plus that still usually works out significantly cheaper than what I would need to buy from the other airlines to be guaranteed to board early enough not to have to gate check my carry-on.

Don't forget the much larger and nearly complete failure of the FAA computer system which caused problems for nearly every airline. This happened before the Southwest debacle. It happened because some routine maintainance person had left out a tiny bit of code. At least that's what the FAA claimed. Not sure why a technician would be working with the code at all in that sort of system....

[Leo Enticknap]

Interesting also that they know where you'll be able to sit on the plane but do not know how long the trip is.

We know from Southwest's difficulties over Christmas that their IT systems can be a little, shall we say, idiosynchratic!

They likely know where I'm able to sit on the plane because I paid extra for that. I bought the early boarding supplement, because it guarantees that I won't have to gate check my carry-on. When traveling for work, if my checked bag (if I'm going to be OOT long enough to need to bring one) goes missing, then it's an annoyance, but not a tragedy: I can always buy some cheap and nasty clothes from the local Walmart on arrival. They won't get me onto the runway at National Fashion Week, but they would prevent me from being arrested for public nudity. But if I have to gate check the bag containing my laptop and other essentials and that goes missing, I'm dead in the water at my destination. At $25 per leg, a regular Southwest ticket plus that still usually works out significantly cheaper than what I would need to buy from the other airlines to be guaranteed to board early enough not to have to gate check my carry-on.

[Randy Stankey]

176 is one more than 175.

In the same way, bars in Pennsylvania are required to close at or before 2:01 a.m.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I was thinking that perhaps it's a round number in km, but it's not (283 km). An even 300 km would be 186 miles, which is sort of close. Maybe it's an even number of light-years.

Interesting also that they know where you'll be able to sit on the plane but do not know how long the trip is.

[Leo Enticknap]

176_miles.png

I wonder why 176 miles is the threshold above which it is permissible to get yourself wankered at 30,000 feet? Seems like a strange and arbitrary number.

That having been said, it's news to me that Southwest even operates flights that short, unless they are on routes that go over mountains or water for which making the same trip on the ground would take a lot longer, even for allowing for airport formalities. The shortest Southwest flight I've ever taken was from Ontario, CA, to Las Vegas, which is around a 220 mile drive. It's airborne for about 30 minutes. Once you factor in getting to and from airports and the formalities at airports, from home to standing in line for my connection at LAS took slightly longer then driving from home to an address on The Strip (assuming clear traffic). I have a hard time believing that anyone in their right mind would want to fly such a short distance point to point.

[Jim Cassedy]

-- - - - - - New Spy Balloon Spotted Over Kansas - - - - -
KansaSpyBaloon2.jpg

[Frank Cox]

Saturday's Smile - 2-4-2023 .jpg
Please enter a message with at least 10 characters

[Randy Stankey]

The telephone number "555-1212" is for telephone number information. If you're over forty, you'll probably catch that instantly.

The telephone area code "404" is for Atlanta, GA but it's also the HTTP error code for "Not Found." You'll probably only catch that one if you're under forty.

So, if the article is, indeed, real, it's more like 1,500 men ended up talking to a this woman, instead:

LilyTomlin.jpg