So how's everyone enjoying their global warming?
Ironically, the winter in the Puget Sound Region has been quite mild; our temperature is seldom below freezing even at night, and aside from a few dustings we've only gotten one snow storm. That was a mild one that, in true Seattle tradition, melted away in a few days.
I got my annual tease from the Social Security Administration this week. 'Hey, you'll get lots of money from us when you retire! Except we'll be broke ten years before you reach retirement age. Psych!'
The 'break even' point (well, the 'break-no-longer-even' point) is expected in 2016. That's in five years, folks. The 'we can't afford this anymore' point is expected in 2037. Those numbers, BTW, are the middle-ground estimates from a government agency, which thus, of course, has no reason to put out misleading forecasts and always accurately anticipates economic trends.
I think it is rather telling that the Social Security Administration, which was created to ensure people wouldn't have to worry about saving for retirement, is now telling people to save money for retirement.
But I shouldn't worry, because the US Congress is On It. I'm sure PBHO will be On It too, as soon as the teleprompter tells him to be. Of course, we're talking about a federal government that pays farmers not to grow food and able-bodied workers not to work.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Happy New Decade!
Yes, most people just wish you a happy new year and yes, it has been a new decade for almost two weeks now.
I've been playing a LOT of Arsenal of Democracy. It may be just a computer game, but it takes far more brain cells and is far more realistic than my job.
My current job (still at Boeing) is working on airplane certification. This means that I create and edit plans and reports talking about how wonderfully compliant Boeing's airplanes are with Federal Aviation Regulations. The final destination of these documents is no less a body than the FAA itself... once they pass through several Boeing groups.
As you might guess, each group up to and including the FAA can reject any of these documents for any reason, and each has their own, often non-compatible, requirements. No one ever rejects a document on a technical basis, however, because the documents themselves contain no technical information. Instead, they talk about OTHER documents, which will also go through their own bureaucratic ordeal. Yes, my job is to do paperwork about how other people will do paperwork.
Too easy, you say? Well, yes, there are other problems.
See, every so often the FAA decides to change the rules. This tends to happen approximately as often and slightly after Boeing or some other aviation company thinks they've come up with something that will make for better airplanes. Now, since the FAA and the Federal Aviation Regulations are set by the Code of Federal Regulations, you'd think that Congress or something might be involved in changing the rules. Nope. The FAA can just send around memos, and if Boeing doesn't like it the FAA can pull our license to manufacture airplanes.
Or the license we hold to manufacture a certain type of airplane, like the 777 family.
Or the license we need to get for each individual airplane we produce. Yes, even if they're the same as one we've already built. We need paperwork to prove that the paperwork on this airplane is the same as the paperwork on the last plane. Oh, paperwork to prove the airplanes themselves are the same? Yeah, we probably need that too, but that's not what my group does.
None of those licenses, of course, would let us operate any of our airplanes in commercial service. No, the airlines need their own licenses, as do the pilots.
Now you may wonder how Boeing can afford to pay me to do paperwork about paperwork for months on end. Well, I'd like to say it is because I'm really good at paperwork, but I'm not. I'd like to say it is because I understand all the requirements, but I don't. I'm not allowed to. Boeing has people who's job is to decide what the Federal Aviation Requirements really mean and explain them to lowly design engineers. These people, naturally, have licenses from the FAA to do the demanding task of reading and understanding Federal regulations. OK, I shouldn't joke about that - go read parts of 14 CFR 25 and you'll see why it takes a specialist.
Now, you might think that the people who's job it is to understand the regulations might be the ones to do the paperwork, since after all they have to be the ones who sign it and say that it is good paperwork. No, they're FAR too busy for that. See, you can only be one of these special people if you've been doing the same job for many years, and you can only interpret the regs for that job section. Engineering groups have high turnover; people seldom work the same job for more than a few years at a stretch. Now think of how many people that leaves who are at Boeing doing the same job for a long time. These are the engineers who Really Know How To Design Airplanes. Understandably, Boeing wants them to spend their time designing airplanes, not doing paperwork. Why not take just a few of them and have them do the paperwork? Weeelll... remember how they're only allowed to interpret the regs in one small area? Yup. They're no better than me OUTside that small area, and inside it there's work to be done.
This post is in compliance with all Gridley Regulations as of 1/13/2011 AD and was created using standard processes and procedures. Revision A, archive location Google Blogger, authority version.
I've been playing a LOT of Arsenal of Democracy. It may be just a computer game, but it takes far more brain cells and is far more realistic than my job.
My current job (still at Boeing) is working on airplane certification. This means that I create and edit plans and reports talking about how wonderfully compliant Boeing's airplanes are with Federal Aviation Regulations. The final destination of these documents is no less a body than the FAA itself... once they pass through several Boeing groups.
As you might guess, each group up to and including the FAA can reject any of these documents for any reason, and each has their own, often non-compatible, requirements. No one ever rejects a document on a technical basis, however, because the documents themselves contain no technical information. Instead, they talk about OTHER documents, which will also go through their own bureaucratic ordeal. Yes, my job is to do paperwork about how other people will do paperwork.
Too easy, you say? Well, yes, there are other problems.
See, every so often the FAA decides to change the rules. This tends to happen approximately as often and slightly after Boeing or some other aviation company thinks they've come up with something that will make for better airplanes. Now, since the FAA and the Federal Aviation Regulations are set by the Code of Federal Regulations, you'd think that Congress or something might be involved in changing the rules. Nope. The FAA can just send around memos, and if Boeing doesn't like it the FAA can pull our license to manufacture airplanes.
Or the license we hold to manufacture a certain type of airplane, like the 777 family.
Or the license we need to get for each individual airplane we produce. Yes, even if they're the same as one we've already built. We need paperwork to prove that the paperwork on this airplane is the same as the paperwork on the last plane. Oh, paperwork to prove the airplanes themselves are the same? Yeah, we probably need that too, but that's not what my group does.
None of those licenses, of course, would let us operate any of our airplanes in commercial service. No, the airlines need their own licenses, as do the pilots.
Now you may wonder how Boeing can afford to pay me to do paperwork about paperwork for months on end. Well, I'd like to say it is because I'm really good at paperwork, but I'm not. I'd like to say it is because I understand all the requirements, but I don't. I'm not allowed to. Boeing has people who's job is to decide what the Federal Aviation Requirements really mean and explain them to lowly design engineers. These people, naturally, have licenses from the FAA to do the demanding task of reading and understanding Federal regulations. OK, I shouldn't joke about that - go read parts of 14 CFR 25 and you'll see why it takes a specialist.
Now, you might think that the people who's job it is to understand the regulations might be the ones to do the paperwork, since after all they have to be the ones who sign it and say that it is good paperwork. No, they're FAR too busy for that. See, you can only be one of these special people if you've been doing the same job for many years, and you can only interpret the regs for that job section. Engineering groups have high turnover; people seldom work the same job for more than a few years at a stretch. Now think of how many people that leaves who are at Boeing doing the same job for a long time. These are the engineers who Really Know How To Design Airplanes. Understandably, Boeing wants them to spend their time designing airplanes, not doing paperwork. Why not take just a few of them and have them do the paperwork? Weeelll... remember how they're only allowed to interpret the regs in one small area? Yup. They're no better than me OUTside that small area, and inside it there's work to be done.
This post is in compliance with all Gridley Regulations as of 1/13/2011 AD and was created using standard processes and procedures. Revision A, archive location Google Blogger, authority version.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Movies from "Childrens" Books
I'm going to compare and contrast two movies I've just seen:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I)
Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Ahem: SPOILER WARNING!
Let's start with the things they have in common. I liked both the books these were based on. They are often thought of as "children's books" but really aren't (though they can be read to and by children). The casting in both series is magnificent, demonstrating both skill (adult actors) and luck (child actors who have grown into their parts well). Both are neither the first nor (presumably) the last in a series of profitable movies.
Despite that, they couldn't be more different.
It really comes down to the scripts, I think. Harry Potter appears to have been written by someone who read the Cliff Notes, once, a while back, and wasn't paying much attention. "Hmm. I can't remember how this bit went. Well, I'll just throw in an action sequence; the audience is just a bunch of kids, they won't know the difference." Narnia seems to have been written by someone who has read the books many times, liked and understood them, and realizes that you can't simply transpose a book into a shooting script if you want a good movie. They also realize that the audience of the movies will be quite different from the one the books were written for. This means spending minutes of screen time to replace things C.S. Lewis could convey in a phrase.
Lewis writes "the London Blitz" and his audience knows exactly what he's talking about. If the movies had just had someone mention the Blitz, most US movie-goers would say "what's that?" and never understand where these characters are coming from. So, they added the opening sequence of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with the Luftwaffe bombing London. Was it in the book? No. Would it have been needed to make a movie in the 1950's? No. Did I, personally, need it? No. Is it necessary to make a movie for the US in the 2000's in general? Yes. Was it well done and woven smoothly into the movie, complete with a visual reference during the climactic battle? Yes. Had they very clearly done their homework? Yes. I've seen bombing sequences in war movies that were less accurate and realistic.
Another difference is the use of CGI and special effects. The Harry Potter movies have been rather bad at this: 'hey look, a CGI monster!' Now, we know that the creatures in Narnia are just as fake. However...
While watching the end credits of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I noted the VERY large number of effects artists and such. I thought at the time "wow, that sea serpent and the dragon must have taken a lot of work! Well, they were worth it." It wasn't until I'd left the theater and gotten home that I realized Reepicheep wasn't REAL! That is the difference between good SFX and bad, people! It isn't how high tech or how wild and scary you make things. It is about making the audience forget that Reepicheep didn't need to stop by the props department for his sword. It is about the NASA engineers going to the makers of the Apollo 13 movie and saying 'hey, where'd you find that footage of the launch? We'd never seen that before.' 'Um... that was special effects.' 'Really?!'
Now, was Voyage a completely faithful re-telling of the book? No, and in some cases I think they could have done better. The Dufflepods were a little disappointing. The quest to find the seven lost lords doesn't seem to have been enough motivation for modern audiences, so an additional motivation has been added: people are being taken by a green mist, and must be rescued. I'm not thrilled by that change, but they wove it into the movie well enough. Tilda Swinton is back as the White Witch. Yes, she died in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That didn't stop her from appearing (in a VERY nice bit) in Prince Caspian, and it doesn't stop her now. Hey, if C.S. Lewis had had Tilda Swinton playing the White Witch in his books, she'd have gotten more time in them, too!
On the other hand, I was very surprised and quite gratified that Aslan saying "I am known by another name in your world" was left in. I would have expected modern Hollywood to shun a Christian reference that blatant. Of course, it is Christmas season. :-)
Kudos also for including, with the closing credits, illustrations from the books. That was a nice touch, though the clothing depicted had almost nothing in common with that in the movie.
The Dawntreader herself is a very nice piece of work. She's quite believable as a Narnian ship on the outside, though her interior doesn't give the impression of a cramped ship of that type.
All of this is in contrast to Deathly Hallows (Part I). Now, I'm one of the people who signed a petition to have the books split into two movies each all the way back at Book 4, but that was because there was a lot of plot in those pages. I'm glad they finally split Book 7, but could they have shoved in some of that plot instead of chases through the woods? Be warned: re-read the book first, or you won't understand what's going on. Critical elements are missing or altered to the point that they don't make sense anymore. Continuity with the previous movie is lacking. Why are Harry and Ginny kissing? Well, they're in a relationship. Um... in the BOOKS, yes. In Movie 6, she kissed Harry ONCE and told him "that can stay in here too, if you want." While the BOOK makes several references to a relationship stemming from their first kiss (which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT), the MOVIE implies that's it for the year.
Overall Voyage of the Dawntreader is an excellent step up from the slight stumble of Prince Caspian, while Deathly Hallows (Part I) is just another in a series of movies that make you want to read the books again so you can figure out what is going on.
See Voyage of the Dawntreader if you like fantasy, or Narnia, or just well done movies in general.
Don't bother with Deathly Hallows unless you're a hard-core Potter fan.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I)
Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Ahem: SPOILER WARNING!
Let's start with the things they have in common. I liked both the books these were based on. They are often thought of as "children's books" but really aren't (though they can be read to and by children). The casting in both series is magnificent, demonstrating both skill (adult actors) and luck (child actors who have grown into their parts well). Both are neither the first nor (presumably) the last in a series of profitable movies.
Despite that, they couldn't be more different.
It really comes down to the scripts, I think. Harry Potter appears to have been written by someone who read the Cliff Notes, once, a while back, and wasn't paying much attention. "Hmm. I can't remember how this bit went. Well, I'll just throw in an action sequence; the audience is just a bunch of kids, they won't know the difference." Narnia seems to have been written by someone who has read the books many times, liked and understood them, and realizes that you can't simply transpose a book into a shooting script if you want a good movie. They also realize that the audience of the movies will be quite different from the one the books were written for. This means spending minutes of screen time to replace things C.S. Lewis could convey in a phrase.
Lewis writes "the London Blitz" and his audience knows exactly what he's talking about. If the movies had just had someone mention the Blitz, most US movie-goers would say "what's that?" and never understand where these characters are coming from. So, they added the opening sequence of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with the Luftwaffe bombing London. Was it in the book? No. Would it have been needed to make a movie in the 1950's? No. Did I, personally, need it? No. Is it necessary to make a movie for the US in the 2000's in general? Yes. Was it well done and woven smoothly into the movie, complete with a visual reference during the climactic battle? Yes. Had they very clearly done their homework? Yes. I've seen bombing sequences in war movies that were less accurate and realistic.
Another difference is the use of CGI and special effects. The Harry Potter movies have been rather bad at this: 'hey look, a CGI monster!' Now, we know that the creatures in Narnia are just as fake. However...
While watching the end credits of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I noted the VERY large number of effects artists and such. I thought at the time "wow, that sea serpent and the dragon must have taken a lot of work! Well, they were worth it." It wasn't until I'd left the theater and gotten home that I realized Reepicheep wasn't REAL! That is the difference between good SFX and bad, people! It isn't how high tech or how wild and scary you make things. It is about making the audience forget that Reepicheep didn't need to stop by the props department for his sword. It is about the NASA engineers going to the makers of the Apollo 13 movie and saying 'hey, where'd you find that footage of the launch? We'd never seen that before.' 'Um... that was special effects.' 'Really?!'
Now, was Voyage a completely faithful re-telling of the book? No, and in some cases I think they could have done better. The Dufflepods were a little disappointing. The quest to find the seven lost lords doesn't seem to have been enough motivation for modern audiences, so an additional motivation has been added: people are being taken by a green mist, and must be rescued. I'm not thrilled by that change, but they wove it into the movie well enough. Tilda Swinton is back as the White Witch. Yes, she died in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That didn't stop her from appearing (in a VERY nice bit) in Prince Caspian, and it doesn't stop her now. Hey, if C.S. Lewis had had Tilda Swinton playing the White Witch in his books, she'd have gotten more time in them, too!
On the other hand, I was very surprised and quite gratified that Aslan saying "I am known by another name in your world" was left in. I would have expected modern Hollywood to shun a Christian reference that blatant. Of course, it is Christmas season. :-)
Kudos also for including, with the closing credits, illustrations from the books. That was a nice touch, though the clothing depicted had almost nothing in common with that in the movie.
The Dawntreader herself is a very nice piece of work. She's quite believable as a Narnian ship on the outside, though her interior doesn't give the impression of a cramped ship of that type.
All of this is in contrast to Deathly Hallows (Part I). Now, I'm one of the people who signed a petition to have the books split into two movies each all the way back at Book 4, but that was because there was a lot of plot in those pages. I'm glad they finally split Book 7, but could they have shoved in some of that plot instead of chases through the woods? Be warned: re-read the book first, or you won't understand what's going on. Critical elements are missing or altered to the point that they don't make sense anymore. Continuity with the previous movie is lacking. Why are Harry and Ginny kissing? Well, they're in a relationship. Um... in the BOOKS, yes. In Movie 6, she kissed Harry ONCE and told him "that can stay in here too, if you want." While the BOOK makes several references to a relationship stemming from their first kiss (which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT), the MOVIE implies that's it for the year.
Overall Voyage of the Dawntreader is an excellent step up from the slight stumble of Prince Caspian, while Deathly Hallows (Part I) is just another in a series of movies that make you want to read the books again so you can figure out what is going on.
See Voyage of the Dawntreader if you like fantasy, or Narnia, or just well done movies in general.
Don't bother with Deathly Hallows unless you're a hard-core Potter fan.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Yesterday
Unrelated to arsenic-based life, I deleted over 1,000 emails at work yesterday. I also handed off, destroyed, or recycled several pounds of paper and several gigabytes of files.
Yes, yesterday I officially started working for the Airplane Certification Group (whimper).
Yes, yesterday I officially started working for the Airplane Certification Group (whimper).
It's Life Jim, but NOT as we know it!
It really isn't!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652940497021092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A NASA researcher has found arsenic-based life. Yup, that's right: alien bacteria are among us!
Green-skinned women are probably still a ways off.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652940497021092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A NASA researcher has found arsenic-based life. Yup, that's right: alien bacteria are among us!
Green-skinned women are probably still a ways off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
