That=92s a good read.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of G=F6khan SEVER
> Sent: October 21, 2006 3:51 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [OT] The 'foolishness' of engineering
> =

> Innovation is hardly linear; real progress takes sweat,
> luck, tenacity and, often, the same tests run repeatedly
> =

> I often hear the pundits and commentators say that one definition of a
> fool
> (or worse) is someone who does the same thing over and over again, but
> expects different results. This tossed-off statement reveals that these
> supposedly smart people have a sad but common lack of knowledge about the
> engineering process.
> =

> The reality is that it is fairly common for engineers to run the same test
> dozens or hundreds of times to get some statistics on the situation, to
> get
> some sense of input/output relationships, to validate a concept or
> implementation, or to try to understand what is going on in their design.
> When you are looking for that elusive timing problem or software bug,
> that's
> usually the only way you can trap it. In fact, because of unavoidable,
> nondeterministic factors such as noise, you often need to run tests
> repeatedly to properly assess and assure performance.
> =

> It's even more critical when you drop down to the atomic and subatomic
> levels, where there is no simplistic, one-to-one action/outcome
> relationship. After all, the disposition of these quantum-level particles
> and waves only has meaning in a probabilistic sense. That's why
> researchers
> doing atom-smashing experiments do them over and over, as every trial
> yields
> different results in that strange world. Some leading technologies, such
> as
> quantum cryptography, actually depend on the roll-of-the-dice aspects of
> their process to function.
> =

> So should we take the easy path and say that the the ignorance of the
> general public is to blame for the low status in which our repetitious
> tests
> find themselves? Sadly, I think
> that we engineers bear a lot of the responsibility. Look in the mirror,
> and
> you'll see the source of the problem=97we did it to ourselves, and we keep
> on
> doing it.
> =

> Our industry portrays the incredible innovation that is its driver as a
> linear, smooth and straightforward process. We smoothly connect the dots
> of
> product design and development steps from A to B to C, as if the process
> were simple and clear-cut, with no need for backtracking and no need for
> repetition of tests and trials. We promise and deliver on regular
> reductions
> in IC feature size, increases in wafer size and enhancements in product
> capability.
> =

> Even the ubiquitous road map popularized by Intel and others (and now a
> mainstay of presentations to the public) reinforces the view that we
> clearly
> know  where we are going. It says that while there may be some obstacles,
> they are no big deal; there is no need to run trial after trial to figure
> out what's going on. Too bad it isn't so. This progress takes sweat,
> insight, luck, brilliance, tenacity and many other hard-to-define factors.
> It's not a deterministic process without surprises, with little need to do
> a
> procedure over and over to
> understand what we are seeing. Rather than the trite comment about this
> being the action of a fool, such repetition and examination of outcomes
> are
> part of our diligence while advancing the state-of- the-art.
> =

> =

> By Bill Schweber (bschweber@cmp.com), editor of Planet Analog, a sister
> Web
> site and publication to EE Times.
> =

> Source:  EETIMES - Issue 1444 (09.Oct.2006)
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist




-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist