tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068279496878576724.post5475045466227078537..comments2024-03-26T09:14:27.971-07:00Comments on Update from the Sunland: Update no.471Cap Parlierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10294150164765131565noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068279496878576724.post-55364444710371039962010-12-27T16:46:14.358-07:002010-12-27T16:46:14.358-07:00Calvin,
Re: Macondo Well disaster. Very well sai...Calvin,<br /> Re: Macondo Well disaster. Very well said and spot on, which is precisely why I am compelled to look beyond the Press reports to the facts. I have too much first hand experience with the Press sensationalization of accidents – aircraft, automobiles, and even oil wells. I understand the short space the Press has to convey their opinion of an accident. The Times essay on the Macondo Well disaster was very well done, good graphics, and exceptional rendition of the consequences to the personnel. However, they failed to represent the cause factors, as is usually the case; they simplify the cause factors too much. As a consequence, the Times’ very impressive essay leaves the public with the image that BP, Transocean and Halliburton are either inept or felonious in their operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which is not an accurate representation of the facts. Thus, the public has an erroneous view of deepwater oil exploration or at least the conduct of those companies in such operations, and bad political decisions will often result.<br /><br /> Re: Treaty of Versailles. Well said all the way around.<br /><br /> Re: Net Neutrality. Again, well said. There are valid reasons for the government to regulate Internet access and capacity. However, perhaps because I have not felt an access or capacity issue with my Internet usage, I am not the most fearful of access. The privacy concerns are far more insidious and thus far more vulnerable and sensitive.<br /><br /> Re: DADT. I believe General Amos’ comments were before a congressional committee. It is public, but not the media . . . even though the media covers public hearings. General Amos stated the professional opinion of the Marine Corps he leads and represents, not the politically correct desired response – his professional obligation, I contend. General Amos was very careful to add that the Marines will do their duty. If my experience with racial integration in the 1960’s & 1970’s has any validity, I think the Marine Corps will set a very high standard of performance in accomplishing the objectives of the implementation plan. Semper Fidelis!<br /><br /> Yes, there are confounding and complicating contrary laws that must be resolved and reconciled before all citizens achieve equal rights and protection under the law without regard to sexual orientation.<br /><br /> Perhaps your assessment of the government’s performance regarding the 9/11 health benefits is a bit harsh.<br /><br /> Human factors engineering has been an important discipline of engineering in general for many decades and a very important part of cockpit design. I must add in all fairness . . . my assessment of the Deepwater Horizon controls, while sophisticated in the mechanical aspects of deepwater oil drilling exploration, seem to lag aviation engineering by a substantial margin with respect to situation awareness and human interaction. Based on all the information I have seen, the DH operators lacked good situational awareness and hesitated when timely decisions were required. Rig designers and operators will learn from the Macondo accident and will make future accidents less likely.<br /><br /> “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”<br />Cheers,<br />CapCap Parlierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10294150164765131565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068279496878576724.post-10462836155893405132010-12-27T07:53:37.125-07:002010-12-27T07:53:37.125-07:00I guess I'll begin with the Macondo Well/Deepw...I guess I'll begin with the Macondo Well/Deepwater Horizon issue. First, I'll point out that the "cold facts" aren't always all that cold. People made decisions about what to include in the reports and how to interpret that. (More on the "human factor" below.) Beyond that, I have no petroleum engineering background to help me understand the reports, nor do I have the leisure time available to read them even if I could understand. I share this with most of the population. Those who read the New York Times story and other in-depth reports will be a minority, but will be more informed than most people. I myself may settle for a summary of the Times story, together with similar sources that I follow. Most people will retain some part of what their TV news tells them, if they watch even TV news. My point is that if you seek to sway public opinion, you need to recognize that little to no technical information will actually reach most of them and what does will not be written by experts but by reporters.<br /><br />As far as Professor MacMillan's discussion of reparations, I suspect that upon further study I would disagree with her particular conclusions. More importantly here, I do not believe that the reparations issue compares realistically with the European Union financial mess. Especially, the World Wars were brought about by national governments; the financial disasters were brought about by bankers and investors. As a result of that, the damages addressed by the Treaty of Versailles were done by national armies acting as the agents of their governments, which were then penalized, fairly or unfairly. The current financial damages trace back to corporate interests. While lax or corrupt regulators undoubtedly played a part, the comparison to the Treaty of Versailles is not accurate.<br /><br />While the FCC has at last addressed Net neutrality, someone will have to define what is "unreasonable" discrimination. Given the current regulatory climate, people paying more money to providers could achieve discrimination in their favor and this might not be seen as "unreasonable."<br /><br />In the discussion of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), my first point is that I agree with you about the danger of "yes men." However, the military, generals and all, ought to keep its discussions internal, not in the media. At all times in all ways, the military must submit to civilian control. The appropriate thing for each of these generals to express to the pres is, "We will carry out the will of the President and the Congress. Our personal opinions play no part in that."<br /><br />The report you summarized seems a pretty reasonable plan for implementing the repeal of DADT. The benefits issue will frustrate people, but a waiting period fits the situation. Some of the corporations are actually ahead of the government in this respect, but it's appropriate for the military to await some level of clarity from the civilian government.<br /><br />I will note that it took nine years to pass the bill in support of the survivors of 9/11. That is a disgrace. We rush to kill people overseas who may or may not be a threat to us, but it took this long to help those actually harmed already. That portends more trouble for veterans, too. It seems that once people serve their purposes, the government loses interest in them.<br /><br />I commend to you the study of the human factor. Regardless of engineering excellence or contribution to humanity, human factors shape every decision made by humans. Whether and how someone understands what they read and hear and how they respond to it will always be influenced by their emotional state, their personal history, and their beliefs about people. This influences the results of everything you discuss here.Calvin Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08877075306887103507noreply@blogger.com