Agile Healthcare Delivery = Failure

Agile Software - from Wikipedia

A couple of days ago wrote a couple of articles on health.  Basically describing my philosophy on taking care of yourself mentally and physically.  A few people read them - less than a dozen.

I also wrote an article on why I though Agile software development was a stupid idea.

Five times as many people read that article.

I find it interesting that developing software with a silly strategy is more important to people than their health.  I have no idea who is reading this blog and certainly most of the interest from my perspective is in the health side - its a topic I write about frequently.

So lets imagine for a moment that doctors used an Agile Development philosophy in treating patients.

According to Wikipedia the Agile Software Manifesto says "Agile software development is a group of software development methods based on iterative and incremental development, where requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing, cross-functional teams. It promotes adaptive planning, evolutionary development and delivery, a time-boxed iterative approach, and encourages rapid and flexible response to change. It is a conceptual framework that promotes foreseen interactions throughout the development cycle."

Let me translate this:

Basically from my perspective you start out with your best "guess" when doing something.  You add to it as best you can to make something "workable."  This goes to the client who comments on it.  You take the comments and anything else you've learned is wrong or could be made better and bake them into your next round of development.  Repeat until the outcome is successful.

Or in another context:

"Gee, Jr. that little Lego car is great, let's put some wheels on it..."

Now if you think about this model  its basically the same thing that happens in the medical world when you have a health problem.

Let's say I show up at the ER with some amorphous pain in my gut somewhere.

Provided that triage does not show appendicitis or similar problems you'll probably be sent home with admonishments to "eat right" and do this or that. And always to "check with your regular doctor." (Iteration #1)

So you go to said "regular doctor" and then poke around a bit and say, "Oh its X" were X is some standard catch-all disease like acid reflux.  Take some Nexium come back in a few weeks, blah, blah blah. (Iteration #2)

You come back four weeks later and say "Oh, that helps some but now my mouth is dry from the Nexium."  So you get a script for Biotene or whatever to fix that.  Mean while the Nexium is destroying your immune system (stomach acid is a big part of your immune system).  You make an appointment for four weeks later... (Iteration #3)

Same idea as Agile Software Development.

I don't know what I am doing so I'll take my best stab at it...

Personally I never really understood this idea.

Now it makes sense in some ways when you are creating a design for something.

A while back I decided to write an App for iTunes (described elsewhere in this an other blogs) call MIDIProbe.

The idea of MIDIProbe was to capture MIDI events in a usable way.

Now I could have just "guessed" at what was needed - did my best to capture what MIDI was about.  Baked that into a release and put it out there.

I then could have waited for customers to find bugs and complain.

Then I could have made another "best guess" and started over.

But I didn't.

I spend A LOT of time with the MIDI standards, device that produced MIDI, etc. so that I actually had a compete and full understanding of what it does and how its used in the real world.  I then went back and made sure my design incorporated all the right functionality from the start.

I also carefully worked out what would need to be displayed about the MIDI messages.  Now this is not as simple as it seems but when you work it all out you have an exact set of data for each message and so on.

In the end the only "customer choice" aspect of the application was the display formatting and operation of the UI.

But it seems like most of the world is lazy and doesn't care to work out details like this in advance.

Now software development got into this state from another state - that of "specifications."

The idea of specifications was that someone would "write out" exactly what was to be done, i.e., basically write the software without writing the software.

But when you think about that you'd really need to fully understand everything in order to write a complete specification: otherwise you'd specify things that might be impossible or impractical for some reason, i.e., take too long.

So then you'd spend an aeon writing useless specifications.

Now medical treatment doesn't use specifications but it uses the same "problem solving" iteration model.

Now on the software side the medical model doesn't work either really.  If something doesn't work typically you actually fix it rather than simply fix the symptom.

SO all and all to me this means that we are not using what we have learned in the last fifty years about problem solving wisely.  In fact, I think to some degree we've gone backwards because at least fifty years ago people were studying these issues and trying to improve.

Today we simply accept bogus approaches as gospel and live with the consequences no matter how silly or stupid.

If you write software to a changing specification how will that work - ultimately the code is not dynamic, i.e., if you write it to deal with adding three things and suddenly there are four things the code simply won't keep up if its hard coded for three.

I think that humanity needs to work out some better approaches to problem solving and debugging.

As I have said before no one that I can find studies this.

Yet it underlies everything from our fifteen trillion dollars in debt to our failed space missions.

A New Means of Printing High Resolution Color Images

A colored nanoscale rendition of a standard test image used in image processing experiments – (a) Before the addition of metal in the nanostructures. (b) After addition of the metal layers to the nanostructures and in specific patterns. (c) Refined color detail. Electron micrograph (bottom right) of nanostructures that make up the eye

Last week a remarkable new way to create print was announced.  A nanotechnology for creating images with a resolution of up to 100,000 dpi (dots per inch).  Traditional printing technologies are limited to about 10,000 dpi.

The illustration above is measured in micrometers (1 x 10^-6 meter or one millionth of a meter). 

The new technology is a reflective lithographic-type process.

(The full article is available at Nature Nanotechnology which requires a subscription.)

The concept was developed in Singapore at the A*STAR’s Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE).  The idea came from stained glass which is given color by adding metal to the molten glass.  The metal adds nanoparticles to the glass which scatter the light to give it color.  This new technology creates a metallic "surface" on the paper using nano-disks.  The disks are encoded for certain colors by size and distance apart.

From phys.org:

"The resolution of printed colour images very much depends on the size and spacing between individual ‘nanodots’ of colour", explained Dr Karthik Kumar, one of the key researchers involved. "The closer the dots are together and because of their small size, the higher the resolution of the image. With the ability to accurately position these extremely small colour dots, we were able to demonstrate the highest theoretical print colour resolution of 100,000 dpi."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-full-colour-images-dpi-resolution.html#jCp

"The resolution of printed colour images very much depends on the size and spacing between individual ‘nanodots’ of colour", explained Dr Karthik Kumar, one of the key researchers involved. "The closer the dots are together and because of their small size, the higher the resolution of the image. With the ability to accurately position these extremely small colour dots, we were able to demonstrate the highest theoretical print colour resolution of 100,000 dpi."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-full-colour-images-dpi-resolution.html#jCp

"The resolution of printed colour images very much depends on the size and spacing between individual ‘nanodots’ of colour", explained Dr Karthik Kumar, one of the key researchers involved. "The closer the dots are together and because of their small size, the higher the resolution of the image. With the ability to accurately position these extremely small colour dots, we were able to demonstrate the highest theoretical print colour resolution of 100,000 dpi."

“Instead of using different dyes for different colours, we encoded colour information into the size and position of tiny metal disks. These disks then interacted with light through the phenomenon of plasmon resonances,” said Dr Joel Yang, the project leader of the research. “The team built a database of colour that corresponded to a specific nanostructure pattern, size and spacing. These nanostructures were then positioned accordingly. Similar to a child’s ‘colouring-by-numbers’ image, the sizes and positions of these nanostructures defined the ‘numbers’. But instead of sequentially colouring each area with a different ink, an ultrathin and uniform metal film was deposited across the entire image causing the ‘encoded’ colours to appear all at once, almost like magic!” added Dr Joel Yang.

From AsianScientist:

“The resolution of printed color images very much depends on the size and spacing between individual ‘nanodots’ of color,” said lead author Dr. Karthik Kumar.

“The closer the dots are together and because of their small size, the higher the resolution of the image. With the ability to accurately position these extremely small color dots, we were able to demonstrate the highest theoretical print color resolution of 100,000 dpi,” he added.

Humanoid Robot Video

The Lone Wolf Philosophy of Health (Part II)

The Lone Wolf Philosophy of Health (Part II):

So aside from "getting your mind right" what else do you need to be concerned about in a nutritional sense?

Below I have listed a number of general categories and the issues with each.

Iodine - Iodine is a necessary nutrient which probably 95% of the people in the US do not get enough of.  I believe the minimum RDA is way too low.

See these posts: "A Short Iodine Story" and "Wherefore Art Thou, Oh Iodine?" - You can follow the "iodine" tag on the second story to more related stories and posts.

Providine Iodine is the the only 100% effective killer of MRSA.

Suggest to a modern medical practitioner anything about iodine and they will look at you as if you have two heads.

Candida - Most people have problems with yeast and Candida is a common form of yeast that infects all parts of the human body.  Not only is yeast a problem with women who take penicillin but its also common in adults and children of both sexes. 

Yeast in humans are typically controlled by bacteria that consume them.  However, today's medical practices focus on "cleanliness" and "bacteria free" to the point where good bacteria are killed off and leave the yeast to run rampant.

See the post "Antibiotics - A Scourge on Humanity."  Antibiotics kill your internal gut flora (bacteria) which account for a huge percentage of your immune system and control yeast inside you.

The bottom line is typically most humans have out of control yeast problems because of antibiotics and too much cleanliness.

Gut Flora - About 20 pounds of body weight in an average adult is bacteria - mostly in your gut.  There's a lot of research that tells us that gut bacteria are symbiotic with your body in terms of your immune system and your digestion.

Some 80% of your immune system resides in your gut in the form of bacteria.

These bacteria are indiscriminately killed by antibiotics along with whatever else they are supposed to kill.  Further, once destroyed they cannot be "reloaded" into your body without substantial effort (basically taking proper supplements or via a "fecal transplant" - see this "Fecal Transplant, er, I mean Bacteriotherapy.")

Inflammation - Many modern things, including diet, cause inflammation in your digestive tract and arteries.  Heart attacks and plaque buildup are the result of inflammation, not "cholesterol" as you see commonly advertised on TV.

See "Cholesterol, Heart Disease and Magical Thinking."

Cholesterol is a necessary element in the operation of your body and brain.  When you do not have enough of it in your diet you and your brain don't function properly.

See "Lower Cholesterol = Memory Loss."  The point of this post is that lowering your cholesterol by the standard medical means is basically making you stupid and not addressing inflammation in your body.

There are numerous things to be done about this: proper supplementation (I like Cod Liver Oil - see "ADHD and a Spoon Full of Sugar" and Vitamin C) chief among them.

There is a lot of research on this - much of which says that things like "cholesterol lowering" medications are very, very bad for you - Google is your friend here.

See "Death by Conventional Medical Wisdom" and "Obesity - Its What's for Dinner."

Obesity - Modern Americans eat the Standard American Diet (SAD).  Healthy people from other cultures and parts of the world come to the US and they get sick.  This is well documented.

See the post "Live Long and Prosper" where I describe how poor rural Mexican's that come to the US for work end up dying from the diet they eat here and that they are actually better off being poor rural Mexican's health-wise that members of US society.

The food pyramid is basically something developed initially to fatten hogs for market.

Much of the problem here is what we eat and what effect it has on our body.

See "What is Your Colon Transit Time."  Some 90% of all disease are thought to be related to improper functioning of the digestive system.

My personal feeling is that you have to eat mostly fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts and no processed flour, sugar, etc.  You must not eat artificial sweeteners, processed oils, etc.

There is another whole area of this related to the types of oils used in modern America (see "Genetic Engineering - It's What's for Dinner").  Many believe that the use of various cooking oils like canola, corn, vegetable, etc. are a significant part of the health problems today.  You should only be using "good" oils like coconut and olive - and then not "burning" them.

Just try and find a food with oil that does not use genetically modified "Round Up Ready" soybean oil.

Now your diet varies by your individual situation and your genetics as I see it - based on your heritage your body may require more of one thing and less of another for example.

The bottom line is that when you are eating right you will lose weight, become more healthy, and your gastrointestinal function will correct itself.  You will eat more, feel better and your food will digest properly. Once this is all "right" you will reach digestive (or "poo") nirvana and your digestive system will work just like the dogs.

(Note that dogs typically don't suffer the same diseases we do and typically have proper digestive functioning.)

Vitamins - Most people I think need a vitamin supplement.  But often they take the wrong thing or too much of the wrong things.  Without proper vitamins the systems in your body will not work right.

You also have to do research on what the right amounts are.

My belief is that the minimum RDA for vitamin C, as an example, was set as the minimum amount to prevent scurvy.

But is that enough?

I think no.  Just because you don't have visible symptoms of scurvy does not mean you have enough vitamin C.

Gingivitis, for example, is basically a sub-clinical (does not show all the symptoms) case of scurvy.

You can buy all the toothpaste in the world and its not going to fix the problem unless you have a proper dose of vitamin C.

Similarly vitamin D is necessary for proper gastrointestinal function.

Normally its produced in your skin by converting sunlight and cholesterol.  (Take sunlight away due to skin cancer and cholesterol because its "bad" for you and critical nutrients needed to run your digestive system vanish from your body.)

Diabetes - This is a general label for two completely different problems.

Type 1 is a genetic problem where your body does not produce insulin. 

Type 2 - which is prevalent today - is related to the fact that your cells become insulin resistant.

See "Type 2 is Not Diabetes..."

Today doctors can barely tell the difference between the two (see this post).

My view is Type 2 diabetes is caused by SAD and you.  If you change what and how you eat it will go away.  Its an "industrial" disease related to the industrialization of food processing in America.

Medications -  Today medications are provided for virtually any complaint - from physical pain to mental issues.  Most of these are bad and designed to profit the company making them.

Just read the side effects list of any medication your doctor prescribes - they are all bad.

And medications interact.  Take medication A and your eyes dry out.  Take B with A so your eyes dry out and your bowels no longer work.  Take A, B, and C so all three work and your mouth is dry and your are sleepy all the time...

This is no way to live.

Medications in the US medical system treat symptoms - not root causes.

Think about it - if you took a pill and the disease went away where would the money be for the manufacturer of the pill or the doctor.

You want to think about your body as a system that works together.  Like a car if you put cheap gas in you get poor results.  Put cheap food in your mouth and you will see the same.

Medications are not a substitute for eating the right food.

----------

This is a lot of material and a lot of it is scary stuff.

We as American's are killing ourselves with our diet, medical system and lifestyle.  (I am not saying all medicine is "bad" - just that much of it is not designed to solve the problem.)

The good news is that it can be fixed though it takes time to retrain your mind and body.

One hundred years ago these problems did not exist because people at a far more natural diet.  But as the culture became more industrialized so do the preparation of food.  And short cuts were taken.

My advice is to find a Naturapathy Doctor who an advise you on diet. 

I personally found my own path but it took many years - though I learned a lot in the process.

There is more than this to the story but my fingers are tired...d

I have tried to put down enough to at least get people started.  There are many wonderful sites on the internet and I am by no means the only person that thinks this way.

Most of my posts have links to other posts and you can always use Google.

I guess most important of all is deciding that you are unhappy with your current scenario.

If you like where you are at then more power too you.  But if you feel you're not where you should be then do some research.  There are numerous books, magazines, blogs, etc.

For me I feel about fifteen years younger than I did...

Your best bet is a practitioner that can help you get started.  But don't just take what they say at face value.  If they recommend supplements, for example, Google them to find out what they are and what they do. 

Empower yourself.

The Lone Wolf Philosophy of Health (Part I)

The Lone Wolf Philosophy of Health (Part I):

I was speaking with someone yesterday about health and feeling "good."  The topic came up off the cuff.  I explained that there was a lot I had done over the last many years to get myself into good physical and mental shape.

I thought I would write this down on the blog so that it would all be in one place.

I think the first and most important thing is that I consider my health to be about the "whole me" - not just some pills I take or food I eat, i.e, not just treating a "symptom."  So this includes things like family, stress, job, all of that as well.  Because as humans we are so tightly entwined with others you really have to consider the whole picture I think as well.

You also have to think about whatever burdens you are carrying from the past and how they are affecting you today.

So we start with what's known as the "serenity prayer" (it has lots of other names as well be we will keep this on topic):

"God grant me the wisdom to change the things I can, to accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."  (And yes, it works even for atheists.)

So before you run off and say "I have to do X before Y" or "I can only do Y after Z" as far as getting healthy I say hold on a minute and think about what this prayer is telling you.

What parts of your life really cannot be changed?

We we should all know we cannot change what has already happened.

But do we really have to live with the consequences of that as they are today?  Can we change ourselves today in terms of how we view and interpret the past?

Many times we believe that our lives have to "be" a certain way - I have to work, I have to make X dollars, I have to do this, I have to do that...

All of this drives us to behave a certain way.  But do we really "have" to do this and that?

You have to really think about that behavior as well (you probably have to pay taxes and die but that's about all you really have to do if you think about it).

So I am saying that if you want to be "healthy" you have to put your full life into proper perspective.  You will have to ultimately have healthy relationships (which might, for example, include healthy boundaries to "limit" those relationships to what you can deal with) with family and significant others, you will have to find a job that does not kill you with stress, you will have to learn to effectively deal with problems others have (drugs, health, etc.) which you cannot change.

The reason for this is simple.  If your job is so stressful that its literally killing you with too many hours or overwork or a crappy boss then no amount of "proper eating," for example, is going to fix it.  You will have to fix your job first - not the other way around.

Modern American medicine is only going to treat your symptoms so no US medical doctor is going to help you with any of this either - instead they will say "you're depressed," give you pills, and send you on your way.

You also have to sort out the difference between "can't change" and "unwilling to change."

If you like sky diving with your significant other but find it stressful then you might have to give it up.  If you are unwilling to do that than no amount of exercise, again as an example, will eliminate that stress - you'll actually have to give up sky diving.  If you keep sky diving because you feel you must then it will be very hard to make yourself healthy.

At the same time if your significant other only loves you because you sky with them then perhaps that's something that should change.

It is also my personal belief is that human's were not designed for the "information age" and our minds and brains are not designed to handle the amount of input they receive in today's cellphone-based, TV new flash world.  Literally every second there is input - news on TV, texts, emails, voice mail, calls, video chats, skypes.

From an evolutionary perspective our brains are designed for sitting around on the savannah waiting for the next antelope to kill.  Maybe some flies buzzing, maybe an wiggling child, but not the constant barrage of data high tech data.

And often the data content itself is stressful as well - killings, stavation, war, elections that will determine our very future, endless talking heads telling us what to think and why.

Now sometimes health comes into play too here.  You get a bad report from the doctor so you start to worry.  That compounds the stress, that affects your work, your boss is angry, and so on.

The only advice I have here is you have to realize that the most important thing you have to worry about is you.

Whether you're the primary bread winner or a mom with kids or just a simple housewife you cannot do your job if your head and health are all messed up.  If you're a parent then understand that your kids will be worse off if you die from stress (or make them live with your stress vicariously) than if you simply "pull back the throttle" a bit and change course.

If you cannot do your job, i.e., what's expected of you, then there will be stress.

So you have to take care of yourself first and foremost.

This kind of change does not usually happen over night so don't expect it to.  You may need to plan things differently, organize your life or your time differently, take some time to accept that so-and-so will never help with mom, or whatever it is.

But in any case the first step is to get your mind on the right path with the serenity prayer.

What's next?

Well, two things I think: you need to eat the right kinds of food and you need to be active in the sense of moving around and not sitting all day.

Exercise can temporarily eliminate the symptoms of stress by generating endorphins.  While that's great while its actually happening if mom's sitting at home angry because you didn't iron her sheets exercise isn't going to make her any less angry.

Its only going to help you to deal with the anger.

I am not suggesting running marathons or anything like that.  But walking around, moving around, biking, swimming, anything but sitting (which will soon be classified as a disease if its not already).

Eating right is the most complicated thing in today's world of the Standard American Diet (SAD).

Virtually everything food-wise you buy is adulterated with chemicals, pesticides, plastic, cardboard, ink, dye, filler, fat, crud, etc.

Again, our evolutionary bodies are designed to be sitting around on the savannah eating the last kill or digging up roots or finding berries - not eating Count Chocula from a plastic bag.

There is a vast array of expertise in the world about this issue and how to work around it.

And about the only think you can know for sure is that the SAD is really, really bad for you.

Its probably making your issues with stress worse, your health worse, and so on.

The good news is that its possible to escape the SAD.

There are good nutritionists around to help.  Especially those that look at your blood chemistry and think about your nutrition relative to that.  (Personally I don't like kinesiology, for example, because its based on subjective rather than objective input.)

You need to find a good one that you can work with.  Look for a Naturapathy Physician to help you.

Your diet is bad for sure and it will take time to fix - not days, not weeks, not even months.

You've probably been eating a certain way for many years and your body is used to that.  It will take time to change so don't rush it.

(And of course, modern medical insurance won't pay for this because modern medicine thinks its okay to eat twinkees and big macs all day long...)

The good news is that lots of people are now realizing what's wrong with the SAD and are pushing retailers to sell good food.  We're not there yet but we're trying...

So the keys to getting well are deceptively simple:

1. Live by the serenity prayer.

2. Don't sit around, move around.

3. Learn how to eat good, nutritious food.

You are also going to have to do some of the work yourself in the sense of going on the internet and finding things out about food in particular.

Everyone is different and what works for one person might not work for another.

We are all unique mentally and genetically and "standard" practices, particularly in medicine and nutrition, are not a one-size-fits-all solution.

The internet will allow you to research symptoms and problems.  But it will also try to convince you you have every disease in the book.

So discriminate.

Personally I like to read peoples stories, not advertising by people selling something.

"I'm Paula from X and my son has Y and I went to the doctor and the doctor said Z and ..."

What did Paula do, why did she do it, and so on.  Hopefully Paula is not selling anything and simply talking about what happened to her.

Lean from what she says.

AND NO NOT PANIC.

(Virtually every serious disease known to man has symptoms like "fatigue, can't sleep, and anxious.")

Chances are you are suffering from SAD, stress and lack of exercise and nothing more.

Use regular doctors to eliminate and rule out problems rather than treat symptoms.

And don't expect medical doctors to understand any of what I am writing - especially the part on nutrition (see this post I wrote a while back: "M.D. = No Knowledge of Nutrition").

If you want to you can succeed.

You will be fighting an uphill battle against advertising on TV, doctors, the medical establishment, everything.

Remember - they are all in it for the money and not your health - DO NOT FORGET THIS.

You need to get yourself better so you can do your job in society - whatever that is.

Don't give up.

It took a lot of twinkees or whatever to get into this boat, it will take time to get out

And, as they say, every journey of a 1,000 miles begins with the first step.

(In Part II I will talk about some of the common issues that face all of us in terms of nutrition and health.  Most are here on this blog but I have to dig through them to find the best places to start...)

Modern Software Development: An Agile Failure

SR-71 Assembly @ The Skunk Works (Wikipedia)

Over the last 35 or so years I have seen a lot of strategies for developing software come and go.

When I was in my twenties many of these strategies were encapsulated in books by "famous" authors.  Perhaps what started it all (circa 1975) and turned out to be the most famous was "The Mythical Man Month" by Fred Brooks.

Brooks wrote about his observations at IBM during the creation of OS/360 - the computer operating system for IBM mainframes introduced with the IBM 360 series of computers.

A key observation by Brooks was "adding more programmers to a project that's already late will make it later," i.e., adding man power does not necessarily get things done quicker.  (Those familiar with, for example, roofing find this counter-intuitive.  I have have 20 squares of shingles to install and I have two roofers I can easily add a third roofer and get more done.)  But this is not necessarily so with software.

The reason is that unlike roofing each piece of software to some degree "interacts" with the other.  So imagine shingles not organized as "all the same" but instead as a puzzle.  Now I cannot simply pull any old shingle out of any old package of shingles and nail it in place.  I now have to inspect that shingle, inspect other shingles, inspect the work and placement of already installed shingles, all before putting my piece in place.

In this context adding a person may make it take longer as anyone who has had inept family members work on their jigsaw puzzle will tell you.  Usually someone takes the lead, develops the strategy (perhaps of sorting pieces by the edge type or color), organizes the work, and gets the job done.

Software is actually an even more complex process in that pieces of the puzzle may be unknown in some way - how they will fit in, what exactly they should do, and so on.

Resolving these issues requires communication between the various parties involved.  However, sometimes a party might make an "assumption" about what another party is doing - either explicitly or implicitly (perhaps without even realizing it).  When its time to connect two pieces about which each side has made assumptions we often find the assumptions don't match up and the pieces don't fit.

Over the last 35 years various strategies have been developed to resolve these issues and make software development more "effective."

During the last sixty or seventy years we can look at similar engineer processes, e.g., airplane building.

Airplanes are as large and complex as any software system (the old adage is that no modern airplane ever built was strong enough to lift off the ground carrying its own documentation).  In the 1940's, 50's and 60's airplanes were built largely by hand - with wood frames for bending metal, slide rules to do the calculations, and drafting boards to create blueprints.

By today's standards this seems primitive but these technologies built airplanes like the XB-70, Concorde, SR-71 Blackbird, F-104 Star Fighter, X-15, 747, and many, many others.  Airplanes which in many cases provided advancement and/or features that today's airplanes would be hard pressed to match both in terms of capability as well as time frame from initial concept to flying prototype.

How can this be so today?  Everyone has advanced degrees, computers in their pocket that exceeded the capacity of all the computers on the planet in 1957.

What's wrong?

If we look at software engineering we see the current "model du jour" of software engineering is "Agile Development."  The idea with this is we "iterate" over some model of what the software should do very quickly.  Work a week or two based on some loose specifications and deliver a prototype.  Get some feedback, work a week or two more, deliver another prototype, and so on until the job is complete!

Basically development by committee.

Early modern jet aircraft, as a counter example, were designed by often by a individual who was able to fully envision the task the plane was too address.  By "fully envision" I mean to literally draw out on a few sheets the entire concept and get more or less "right" the first time.  Further, the process to build the plane was tightly controlled by a strong, able leader.  (See this for the rules of the Lockheed Skunk Works.)

These people had all the experience to innately "know" they were designing something that could be built and would fly.  Innate experience that comes from "working your way up the ladder" in a place like the Skunk Works: knowing the right kind of metal existed and would work, understanding stress innately rather than only through some simulation, and so on.

But today we no longer have this kind of strength or depth in knowledge or leadership - particularly in software.

Today specialization is so strong that many programmers never speak to a customer - or have no idea how things will be used - or have no concept of "product life cycle."  So while they may be "highly educated" they know little about what needs to be done.

Often they are more concern with what others will think or feel about the work being done than actually doing the work right.  They are more concerned with their own careers than properly performing the work for the project.

Things like Agile Development simply hide this from the customers view.

Ultimately the real problem is that software engineers are just that - software engineers.  What do they know about, for example, flap controllers on an airplane.  For a software engineer to build a piece of software to do the "right thing" for the flaps on the 747 they have to "know" as much as an aerodynamic engineer.

If they don't and don't take into account complex issues like, for example, stall speed, then the functionality of their software will be deficient.

So in truth the only way to write good software is to actually understand what you are doing in the domain the software will work in, e.g., airplanes, or music, or print, or whatever.

But today certainly no younger people have this depth of skill.  They've only learned one thing at school: writing software.

So now they have to learn about what they are doing in some other field in order to properly create software for that field.

And that's where things are going bad, at least from my perspective.

Modern software "kids" don't understand any sort of "big picture."

And the products they build suffer because of it.

And "strong leaders" are discouraged as well - they stand out and often are at "odds" with the community development concepts - strong leaders have strong ideas about how things should be done.  Typically this involves "vision" - something a committee does not usually have in abundance.

With the explosion of computers in our lives (installed in everything from refrigerators to cars to razors) there is a constant demand for "programmers."  But what's turned out by schools is usually not up to snuff in terms what industry needs.

I think that "Agile Development" is the epitome of this failure.

Hire someone to run your project that knows what they are doing rather than iterate over "guesses" about what should be done.

Often in Agile environments people with actual knowledge of the problem to be solved are viewed as impediments to the Agile process.   This is because actual knowledge may point to a solution that does not fit rapid iteration, e.g., the problem requires complex software to be developed based on something like the laws of physics.  NO amount of iteration will change these laws so you have to bite the bullet and deal with it.

If no one knows enough to run the project then someone will have to learn.

This is yet another massive failure of the US educational system - probably on par with the same failures I have written about in medical research.

We need to wake up and smell the coffee...

X-51A: Your Future at Mach 6

 For several years the Air Force has been working on the X51-A - a hypersonic missile/aircraft capable of flying at mach 6 or around 4,600 miles per hour.

The X-51A has been under development for approximately six years.


So far the testing of this device has been hit-or-miss.  The first one flew 200 seconds.  The second only a few seconds.  The final of the first three ordered will fly today.  Hopefully the third test will be successful.

The X51-A uses a scramjet engine.  This is basically a highly optimized tube with few or no moving parts.  As air enters its accelerated to supersonic speed.  Fuel is injected and ignition takes place.

As you can see from this diagram its an extremely simple device.

Below is a test flight video of the first flight:



 According to this the X-51A is powered by an "SJY61 Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne scramjet engine, which is capable of producing between 400 to 1000 lbs of thrust."

So if you had something like this what could you do with it?

DARPA says that this is the precursor to a mach 20 craft capable of traveling over 15,000 miles per hour.  Since the earth is only 25,000 miles in diameter this means that such a craft can arrive anywhere in the world in less than an hour.


You could make it a cruse missile or attach a manned capsule for trips into space.


One thing that's important to realize is that US Defense programs like this allow the United States to leapfrog other countries in terms of technology.  Rather than building me-too kinds of craft we can actually lead.


I think this comes from the countries focus on science and engineering in the 1960's.


Unlike the social upheavals of the same era the focus on technology was an investment that still pays dividends today for our country.


Sadly I think that this focus is now dying.


Just look at the commercials for technology on TV today - mostly old geezers telling how they were "inspired" years ago to do something.


No young people.


And if there are some, they seem technologically illiterate.