Mitigating human error in the SP
LarrySheldon at cox.net
Sat Feb 6 14:56:15 UTC 2010
On 2/6/2010 8:12 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:22:23 -0600
> Larry Sheldon<LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote:
>>> Present the cost and the plan in a public forum or widely distributed
>>> memorandum (including as a minimum everybody that was at the meeting and
>>> everybody in the chain(s) of command between you and the edict giver.
> Problem is, when the inevitable human error does occur, the expensive
> lab then just looks like it was a huge waste of money, and that the
> networking people took advantage of the situation to build a play
> ground. They'll then likely be shown the door.
I can't imagine wanting to work at a place like that anyway.
> The only way to completely eliminate human error is to eliminate the
> humans - from everything - hardware design, software design, deployment
> and maintenance.
This may be a little heavy on the philosophy, but there has to be a
human in there somewhere.
And, will I don't have any statistics at all, I sense that machine
failures probably exceed human failures in rate and severity.
Certainly there are assists that make sense.
And by the way, what difference does it make if you get fired because a
machine "replaced" you and getting fired because somebody made a mistake?
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG