Monday, January 1, 2018

Called it!

It looks like I'm not alone in my "silly" speculation ;¬)

In a video published just yesterday (transcript below), well-known UFO believer John Lear "speculates", as I did, about the unprofessional language used by the "military pilots" in the Gimbal video.

Who is John Lear? I said in an earlier post that I've never piloted a jet. Well John Lear has piloted probably thousands of jets. In fact, Lear's dad invented the Lear Jet!

Lear believes in aliens and flying saucers and related conspiracy theories. In the interview (transcript below), he talks about the existence of "MJ12". Lear is the guy behind the camera in the famous video of the infamous Bob Lazar; wherein Lazar claims to have seen reverse engineered UFOs at Area 51 (he also mentions Lazar in yesterday's video). So for Lear to believe (as I similarly "speculated" in an earlier post) that the audio in the Gimbal video was overdubbed, is significant, in my opinion.

And given Lear's pedigree, I expect many might even eventually come to reluctantly accept his "speculation" on the authenticity of the Gimbal video and audio, as "facts".

For my part, I'd just like to say, Called it! ;¬)

Is the Pentagon UFO Tictac video Hoaxed? John Lear Interviewed by Grant Cameron

Three red flags should have been raised about the recent video described in the New York Times. On day one the Defense Department denied it. Within minutes of its release the UFO man at the CIA yelled hoax. This video is an interview with the famous aviator John Lear as he described the problems with the video itself and why he thinks it may have been hoaxed.

Grant Cameron [GC] — John Lear [JL]

00:35 [JL] Hi Grant. How ya doin'?

00:37 [GC] Not too bad. You got a second just to talk about this film that you were talking about the other day?

00:40 [JL] Sure.

00:43 [GC] You stated there's a problem with the film. Can you just briefly describe what you think the problem is?

00:50 [JL] The first thing I noticed is there's background noise that shouldn't be there. Inside that cockpit it's extremely quiet.

The oxygen mask seals against the pilot's face. So that there is no extraneous ambient sound. And somebody put in a sound like as if wind was rushing against the airplane. They didn't know that it's super quiet. And the reason it's quiet is because no ambient air can get to the microphone. The microphone is inside the oxygen mask; which is sealed against the pilot's face.

Then — let's see. I don't have my notes here. But uh...

01:44 [GC] There's something about the way they talked.

01:49 [JL] Oh! They used language that pilots wouldn't use. Like, "bro" and "dude". That's not pilot's language. And they said...

02:05 [JL] [Lovely tinkly cellphone ringtone interrupts...] Hold on a second...

02:18 [JL] The one pilot said, "The wind is a hundred and twenty knots to the West. First of all pilots never use, don't say the wind's...First of all, they wouldn't even have a reason to say, "The wind". It has nothing to do with what they're supposedly tracking; an object.

There's no reason one pilot would have to say what the wind was. But anyway if they did say it wouldn't say knots. They would say, "Wind is hundred and twenty at..." and then they would give the degrees — around magnetic compass in degrees — and they would say, "Wind one twenty from one two zero..."

Wind is _never_ stated as it's _going_ somewhere. It's always _from_ somewhere. It doesn't matter whether it's being printed or talked about. The wind is always _from_ somewhere; not _to_ somewhere.

Then — let's see; what else was there? Now the HUD. The Heads-up Display is showing different information. It shows the speed at two hundred and thirty-eight knots; it varies. But if the airspeed was two hundred thirty knots, why is the heads-up display not showing getting any closer to the "tic-tac" or whatever they want to see it?

Now, if they had seen something they would want to go and try and catch it. These airplanes, the A-F eighteen can go close to mach two. So why are they only going at two hundred thirty-eight knots? But even if they were just going at two hundred thirty knots, they should be closing in on the object. The object is staying stationary in the display. Now, the display shows two vertical lines. And if you're tracking something, you keep the object between those two vertical lines using the controls that you have. And it doesn't appear like it's getting any closer!

Let's see...I think those are the main points.

05:12 [GC] So do you think the video and the audio is bad?

05:17 [JL] Well yeah. The audio; somebody _definitely_ put it in after the fact. And I don't know _why_ they would use language like "dude" and "bro"! I mean that's just, that doesn't make any sense! When pilots talk, they're in short, clipped sentences. And would say, "The wind is here..." or "I'm doing this..." or "I'm doing that...". They wouldn't use, "BRO" and "DUDE"! That's — what do they call it? — language that's not used by pilots.

As far as the _video_ part, it looks like somebody put that "tic-tac" in there somehow. But wasn't able to make it come any closer as if the F-18 was closing in.

06:22 [GC] OK. Do you have any ideas? Do you have any cause? Do you have any idea why they did this?

06:28 [JL] Yes. Why they did it?! They did it because Jim Reid is retiring from thirty years in the Senate; where he had nothing to do except enjoy the benefits of being a Senator. Now, he's [inaudible] and he needs a job. So he manages to...he thought that he would be "_Mister Disclosure_". "_Mister UFO_".

And the reason he thought that, is because he knows full well — and he's enjoyed the information of MJ12 thirty, thirty-five years. And he knows that MJ12 — after spending _hundreds_ of billions of dollars covering up the UFO deal — that they would never say _anything_. So, and they would never contradict him.

But they...what he _thought_ is he'll raise that twenty-two million dollars; pretend that he's helping disclose the UFO question — which everybody wants to know — so he got the twenty-two million dollars; gave it to Bob Bigelow, his friend. Now Bigelow has absolutely _NO_ reason that Reid should have given the money to Bigelow. He has absolutely no expertise in uncovering this stuff. He was originally in partnership with Bob Lazar in a company called "_Zeta Reticuli Corp_".

And Bigelow financed Bob with a laboratory — that was over by McCarran Airport — with all kinds of computer equipment and stuff to aid Bob with needing to research. So basically, Bob Bigelow thought that he would be able to drop in every once in a while and see the scientists building all kinds of interesting stuff. What Bob [Lazar] thought, or what Bob [Lazar] did was take all that equipment to his home and worked on it and did stuff that _he_ wanted to do; not what Bob Bigelow wanted. So, that company didn't last very long. I think it was a year or so.

But Bigelow would have no reason...or Harry Reid would have no reason to give that money to Bigelow other than the fact he was his friend. And that when he got the money, he would hire Reid to work for him. That way, when Reid retired, he wouldn't have to do anything — Bob Bigelow would put him on as and advisor — and Harry Reid would just be able to continue on his life without having to do anything.

09:26 [GC] Wow! OK. You gotta go. Just one last question. They're claiming they got twenty-four videos, hardware, reports. Do you think it's gonna appear? Or is this the end of the story?

09:40 [JL] Oh, I have _no_ idea, Grant, what they're gonna do. It's a scam from the beginning! So, I don't know whether somebody's gonna be able to expose it or what. Now _who_ has twenty-four videos?

09:54 [GC] Well this is the story tht they're putting out; that Bigelow has...there's twenty-four videos that they're bringing out. And thirty-six reports or thirty-eight reports, thirty-six technical reports — up to four hundred and ninety pages — and that they've got the hardware. This stuff that they got the hardware in this place that Bigelow has in North Las Vegas?

10:17 [JL] Yeah well, Grant, you know as well as I do that after _seventy years_, MJ12 has at _least_ a hundred saucers. They have _THOUSANDS_ and _millions_ of feet of video — _MUCH_ better than that two thousand and four video or whenever it was. And they're just gonna try and pretend that they're "_Mister Disclosure_"! They're gonna expose the UFO cover-up. And it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

10:54 [GC] Beautiful! Thanks John!

10:55 [JL] OK.

10:56 [GC] We'll talk to ya later.

10:58 [JL] Thank you, Grant.

10:59 [GC] Thank you, John.

11:00 [JL] Bye.

Source


I-Team: 25 years later: Man who exposed Area 51

...

[George] Knapp had been preparing for the 5 p.m. news on May 13, 1989 when the scheduled interview canceled. Knapp placed a call to aviator John Lear to see if someone else could fill the spot. Lear had hinted to Knapp he knew someone who worked out near Area 51, and the guy claimed to have been tinkering with flying saucers from another planet.

That first interview with Bob Lazar sounded outrageous and it ended up exposing details about the government’s secret base called Area 51. Lazar was initially reluctant to talk, but he did.

...

Former CIA pilot John Lear remembers the day that Area 51 became a household name. He shot home video of an interview where a nervous Lazar talked with Knapp about Area 51.

“Yeah, he's nervous because he was putting it all on the line there. He's going to reveal secrets he'd signed on he would never tell anybody,” Lear said.

...

Source

Monday, July 20, 2015

why can't programmers...resolve program defects?


From my personal experience, why can't programmers...resolve program defects? strikes more of a chord than the question asked in Why Can't Programmers..Program.

I've worked with both BEA's AquaLogic Service Bus (ALSB) and with Oracle's Service Bus (OSB). I also have the teensiest-weensiest bit of exposure to Software AG's webMethods. So, for a long time I'd been intending to look into the buzz around Mule ESB. I finally had enough spare time on my hands recently to read up on it. In the process, I came across Can Programmer's Program? in a MuleSoft blog.

In summary, what the MuleSoft guy's saying is, "You're not a real programmer unless you can solve FizzBuzz". That's not only the height of arrogance, but from my own personal experience, a programmer's programming-puzzle-solving ability is orthogonal to their real-world software-development-solution-providing ability. I say that as a person who himself enjoys solving programming puzzles — as a kind of workout for the brain.

I base my opinion on my own first-hand true Coding Horror story. I joined a project, once, where my primary responsibility was what is euphemistically called "Software Maintenance". More precisely: "Bug Fixing"/"Defect Resolution".  People who have been in the industry for any length of time will already know that the Maintenance phase of any software development life cycle is the most costly. So I won't belabor that well-known fact.

There was a guy on this project who had been there for six months at the point I joined. And like myself, his primary objective on that project was to resolve defects. The amazing thing is, this guy had not resolved a single defect in six months! I kid you not!

A couple months into my stint on that project, and this same guy still had not resolved a single defect. Though not for want of trying – trust me.  That was his eight month mark at that point. I swear to God I am not exaggerating. It was somewhere around that time that – just in the course of conversation — I started talking about a particularly hard [for me] programming puzzle that I came across once. I wrote down the puzzle on a piece of paper, and shared it with this teammate. He solved it pretty much immediately — way quicker than I did when I originally discovered it some time back. Fast-forward a month ahead. The guy's been there nine months at that point, and he was still struggling with the same defect he'd started working on more than a month previously! I swear to God I'm not making this up.

What's my point? That guy was a genius at solving programming puzzles. But he struggles at everyday bread-and-butter software development skills. The skills that pay the real bills.

Although the kinds of people who can whack off Codility solutions in their sleep, are interesting as freaks of nature, I personally am not impressed by such ultimately meaningless skills. As a revealing example of another such ultimately meaningless skill, consider the guy who can look at a shuffled deck of cards and then tell you by memory where each individual card is in the deck. Fascinating trick and everything. Except, the guy's been collecting unemployment for the last several years. So at the end of the day, his feats of memory, though remarkable—no question— are ultimately worthless for solving any real-world problems.

Similarly, there are millions of people around the world who have an uncanny knack for solving crossword puzzles in seconds flat. According to the Mule ESB guy's logic, and the Why Can't Programmers..Program school of thought, such people who are extraordinarily adept at word games should therefore all be Pulitzer Prize-winning authors. Or with a crossword puzzle guru's awesome command of the etymology, syntax, grammar and vocabulary of their native language, the Mule ESB guy would expect they should all be in great demand as highly-paid speech-writers for  Heads of State and Captains of Commerce world-wide. But the reason that they all aren't is: just because a person excels at certain game-play, it does not necessarily follow that they will excel at a related discipline as a career. The converse is also true. Just because somebody is not so hot at solving programming puzzles...

Now, if you can show me how an Equilibrium Index, a FizzBuzz or a Palindromic String detection algorithm could solve any of the 8,300 bugs (and counting) in any of MuleSofts products, only then will the parlour skills of people like the Mule ESB guy impress me.

Show me that, and then I will expend the effort to master whatever it takes to solve every puzzle that your Top Coder, your Codility and that ilk want to throw at me.

Until then, I got real problems to solve. Puzzles will have to wait.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

when is a visual model ever finished?

The Context

I'm a  programmer with 15+ years of experience. As a newbie programmer,  I cut my teeth on visual modelling (UML & mind mapping). While it is probably hard for junior programmers to appreciate, there was a time - before Agile this and Scrum that - when UML was just as hot a topic as those two phenomena are these days.

Within my 15+ years as a programmer, I've programmed in 5 different programming languages; I've been on 3 "hardcore" Agile teams; I've been on at least a dozen "softcore" agile (little "a") teams; I've programmed as a one-man band for mom-and-pop shops; I've programmed for huge enterprise shops; I've programmed for my own home lab hobby projects. Throughout all of the above, I've both produced and consumed a lot of UML diagrams.

I'm currently on an internationally-distributed team. I was recently assigned the task of producing visual models of the structures specified by an already-existing design; structures of one subsystem of a larger supersystem. In one of the team's daily stand-ups - 2 days before the end of the sprint - the scrum master asked me, "...when will the visual models for subsystem X be finished...?". To which, I replied, rhetorically, "...when is a visual model ever finished?"

One of the more switched-on members of the team could tell that I was starting to launch into that classical debate about the futility and wastefulness of perfecting any diagram to the umpteenth degree; since the source code, from which you're reverse engineering, is constantly changing. The other members of the team owe her a big thanks for sparing them from a two hour-long stand-up. I certainly thank her; for inspiring me to post my first-ever blog. She suggested to me, "...why don't you discuss it offline...".

The Subtext

Hopefully, it is obvious from the context what my position is on visual modelling and Agile development processes. In case it isn't obvious, I'll spell it out: I am pro visual modelling! I am pro Agile! The reason that is not an oxymoron, is this: I am a religious fanatic about neither one of them! A lot of things that I say in this post will probably seem contradictory to a lot of people if they can't grok that underlying subtext.

The Point

The point that I started making in that stand-up meeting that day, is: a visual model is finished when it communicates, sufficiently enough, whatever the modeler set out to communicate; when it communicates, simply enough, for the viewers of the model to understand it; when it communicates, comprehensively enough, for the viewers to get some practical use out of it. At the point in time I was asked that question, I was confident that - if they were for me only - or, more likely, for programmers with similar exposure to UML as me - the models I'd produced met all of the above "enough" criteria. 

The Answer(s)

Now, were they finished to the point where you could generate a working application from them? No. That's a horse of a different color. And a drop date of another month. Were they finished to the point where you could publish them in a User Guide and have all the end-users make sense of them? Not yet, but give me another two weeks. Were they finished to the point where they would survive the scrutiny of a Capability Maturity Model audit and pass with flying colors? After only 2 hours of modelling? Be for real! Were they finished to the point where we can tick off the box that says, "Some Pretty Visual Models Shall Be Created"? You bet! Your contractually obligated models are all ready for you, Ma'am! Sign here, please?

The Finished Line

Of all of the many programming projects I've worked on in which UML was used, the projects that used UML most successfully (with the most agility) had one thing in common: somebody - before the modelling effort even began - established a "finished line" for the models being produced. That "finished line" criteria answered questions like, "what type of diagrams should be created (class? sequence? state?)", "what level of detail needs to be shown?", "who are the models for? for me only? for Pavel, Андрей, Konstantin and all the other offshore teammates in Ukraine who hate UML with a passion?", "are the models expected to be updated with the source code or not (both can be successful; believe it or not)"?, "for what purpose will the models be used"? Without a "finished line", guess what happens. You never finish! You run around in circles until you either get bored (been there) or die of exhaustion!

More often, though, the "finished line" has been determined by "the bottom line". How much is "The Customer" (the entity signing the checks) prepared to pay for all those pretty boxes, lines and arrows?  Just be careful what you ask for though, Customer; because you might get it! Caveat Emptor!