PDA

View Full Version : NASA-style Reliability



SeanF
2002-Jan-11, 01:07 PM
Okay, this doesn't really qualify as "Bad Astronomy," but I found it kind of interesting and am curious what the folks here think about it.

For my job (IT support), I came across this website (http://compower.numberop.com/) for a software product that's supposed to make Windows more reliable (frankly, I'd be impressed if somebody could make Windows any less reliable!). At any rate, about a quarter of the way down the page is this sentence:



WinFix is itself fault-tolerant and self-repairing, for NASA-style reliability, making it the most robust and dependable program of its kind.


I smiled when I read that.

So, what do you all think? Does describing a product as having "NASA-style reliability" strike you as being good advertising, or do you think the general public today might be less-than-impressed with NASA's reliability image?

Note: I, myself, think NASA does a great job in this regard. I'm just thinking that their failures tend to get so much more media attention than their successes that the general public may not share that opinion . . .

ToSeek
2002-Jan-11, 01:47 PM
"NASA-style" reliability doesn't sound like much of an endorsement, sad to say. Maybe in the Apollo days.

I also liked this bit:


It uses a modified-classical afferent-efferent, transform-centered design, where the inputs are abstracted to higher and higher levels until the transform center is reached (afferent side), and then the actions and outputs are generated in a symmetrical fashion down the efferent side. The wizards correspond to the afferent side, and the agents to the efferent side.

which as far as I (a software engineer for twenty years) can tell is total gobbledegook.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-11, 03:40 PM
On 2002-01-11 08:47, ToSeek wrote:
"NASA-style" reliability doesn't sound like much of an endorsement, sad to say. Maybe in the Apollo days.

I also liked this bit:


It uses a modified-classical afferent-efferent, transform-centered design, where the inputs are abstracted to higher and higher levels until the transform center is reached (afferent side), and then the actions and outputs are generated in a symmetrical fashion down the efferent side. The wizards correspond to the afferent side, and the agents to the efferent side.

which as far as I (a software engineer for twenty years) can tell is total gobbledegook.




You've got 7 years on me, but I agree this is completely marketing buzzword garbage. Let you know that the person writing the statement had no clue what it was about but, dang, it looked good on paper.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-11, 03:58 PM
On 2002-01-11 10:40, Valiant Dancer wrote:
You've got 7 years on me, but I agree this is completely marketing buzzword garbage. Let you know that the person writing the statement had no clue what it was about but, dang, it looked good on paper.


Yeah, my first thought was "Boy, I want one of those!" until I realized it was impressive-sounding nonsense.

Code Red
2002-Jan-14, 04:30 PM
It uses a modified-classical afferent-efferent, transform-centered design, where the inputs are abstracted to higher and higher levels until the transform center is reached (afferent side), and then the actions and outputs are generated in a symmetrical fashion down the efferent side. The wizards correspond to the afferent side, and the agents to the efferent side.

Sounds like excellent material for a Dilbert cartoon... I wonder if the guy who wrote this had pointy hair...

aurorae
2002-Jan-14, 06:49 PM
On 2002-01-11 08:47, ToSeek wrote:

I also liked this bit:


It uses a modified-classical afferent-efferent, transform-centered design, where the inputs are abstracted to higher and higher levels until the transform center is reached (afferent side), and then the actions and outputs are generated in a symmetrical fashion down the efferent side. The wizards correspond to the afferent side, and the agents to the efferent side.

which as far as I (a software engineer for twenty years) can tell is total gobbledegook.



I think what that is saying is that it takes in data, does something to it, and spits it back out.

In other words, it says Garbage in, Garbage out

Tom
2002-Jan-14, 08:36 PM
I think it comes with one of those gadgets to improve your cell phone reception, too.

The Rat
2002-Jan-15, 02:15 AM
On 2002-01-14 15:36, Tom wrote:
I think it comes with one of those gadgets to improve your cell phone reception, too.


And the whole thing runs with one of them thar 100 mile per gallon carburators... yeah,... yeah,...

Where's my Scotch...?

Chip
2002-Jan-16, 04:11 AM
To Seek wrote: I also liked this bit:

"It uses a modified-classical afferent-efferent, transform-centered design, where the inputs are abstracted to higher and higher levels until the transform center is reached (afferent side), and then the actions and outputs are generated in a symmetrical fashion down the efferent side. The wizards correspond to the afferent side, and the agents to the efferent side."[/quote]

"Which as far as I (a software engineer for twenty years) can tell is total gobbledegook."

============================================

True. But, I knew a guy once who had efferent transform centers installed in his computer. He could lift a car!

As for me, you should see the way I look now that I've adapted modified-classical afferent-efferent transform-centered designs in my home. Here I am: http://www.auntie.com/dustcatchers/ross/flash-ga.jpg

Meals are a snap. Mrs. Chip is also happy with the household disintegrator beam, though those pesky Monsters from the Id bother us sometimes. (But they come in handy around Halloween.) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Chip Morbious


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-01-15 23:14 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Jan-16, 01:24 PM
On 2002-01-15 23:11, Chip wrote:

As for me, you should see the way I look now that I've adapted modified-classical afferent-efferent transform-centered designs in my home. Here I am: http://www.auntie.com/dustcatchers/ross/flash-ga.jpg


I like the hat. Does it keep the mind rays out or help you broadcast them yourself?

Chip
2002-Jan-16, 03:52 PM
On 2002-01-16 08:24, ToSeek wrote:
I like the hat. Does it keep the mind rays out or help you broadcast them yourself?


Well, a little of both actually. The hat (as you call it) helps me broadcast mind rays directly to the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board! (But I can only reach the movie pages mentally.) For the General Astronomy pages I have to go back to the keyboard. Oops, gota go, Zorgon is calling from Altair 4! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-01-16 10:53 ]</font>