On the need for a USAF requirements writing office

Long article in Aviation Week bemoaning various recent Air Force project disasters such as the tanker mess, a troubled recon satellite program, a follow on UAV program, and pontificating upon a fix. The author blames bad specification writing, in particular bad requirements specification writing as the cause, and calls for a special corps of requirement spec writers as the fix.
Do I believe that a bunch of well trained paper pushers can solve all the problems of military procurement? No. However better requirements would certainly help.
Back in ancient history, the F105 and F106 fighters from the Viet Nam era, maintainance of which was my duty in those days, we had a pair of hot fighters loaded with fancy gadgets that never worked or were never used. The F106 flew with the Tactical Situation Display inop, the retractable beacon lights fully extended, and the doppler mode of the radar inop. The F105 never put bomb one into it's fancy internal bomb bay, the doppler navigator and the UHF radio were so flaky the planes flew in groups of four, hoping that ONE doppler and ONE UHF would be working upon return.
These "issues" (down right failures actually) started at the requirements spec level. Nice to have, but troublesome and non essential requirements, burdened the aircraft with gear that took up space and weight but didn't work. The space and weight would have been better dedicated to carrying more fuel and armament. Had the requirements spec been trimmed of excess fat before going into production, considerable taxpayer expense would have been saved.
So the issue of proper requirements is a real one. If we speced it right, a lot of time, money and aggravation would be saved. When we spec it wrong, or fail to spec it at all, trouble insues.
The best requirements spec writers are experienced operators. Want a good requirements spec for an aircraft or a tank or even a jeep? Get the users together and let them write the spec. You might need a secretary from the bureaucracy to clean up the language, but the users know what's essential and what's a frill. Specially trained requirements spec writers won't.

Outrageous Patent granted to IBM

Slashdot reports that IBM was granted a US patent for cash register software that remembers "paper or plastic" for each customer, relieving the clerk of the onerous task of asking. This trivial and obvious idea is worthy of patent protection? Can you say "patent troll"? Can you say "welfare for patent lawyers"? Can you say "Patent examiner with the IQ of an Ipswich clam"?

Do you believe in the market or in CAFE?

With fanfare and political posturing the Congress jacked up the mandatory fuel economy from 25 mpg to 35 mpg just this year. Despite wailing and gnashing of teeth from the auto industry, it is perfectly possible to build 35 mpg cars today. In fact, you can buy an Aveo, a Yaris, or a Prius today and obtain 35 mpg or better. In a 35 mpg only world, you are limited to tiny econoboxes or pricey hybrids.
Automobile technology has been pretty well worked out since Henry Ford's time, and there is only so much you can do with it. After 100 years, the technological avenues are worked out and well known. The only way to get 35 mpg is build a very small light car (Aveo & Yaris), or install dual propulsion machinery, gasoline engine and battery electric, (Prius) which doubles the cost. Or do like the Europeans, soften the emissions requirements to permit diesel cars. The diesel Rabbit did 40 mpg back in the 1970's.
Of course, if you want a bigger vehicle to bring the kids along, bring sheet goods home from the lumberyard, or furniture back from the auction, you are out of luck.
Market demand causes the car makers to build everything from tiny econoboxes to Hummers, giving citizens the right to buy what they want. 35 mpg CAFE standards pretty much outlaw anything bigger than econoboxes. Me, I'd rather live in a country that allowed citizens to spend their money the way they like.

Where does all the oil go?

I totaled up my personal oil consumption, furnace oil and gasoline. Last winter the furnace used 616 gallons, and the car took 370. Call it a thousand gallons for the year in round numbers. Call it three gallons a day, again round numbers. For a ball park estimate make the average family size three, divide the population of the country by three and get 100 million families, using three gallons a day,or 300 million gallons a day. Divide by 55 to make it barrels and get 5.4 million barrels a day for consumer use. Actual US crude oil consumption is far higher than that, 20 million barrels a day.
That makes 14.6 million barrels a day going into industry. I wonder where it all goes and how much is necessary. Can we find ways to economize in industry?
For instance, A TV ad this morning claims 60 billion pounds of plastic bottles are made each year. Convert that to barrels per day assuming 7.5 pounds per gallon. I get 400,000 barrels per day. That's 2% of daily oil consumption going into plastic bottles. Suppose we went back to real glass bottles, the kind you return, wash and refill?
Where does the 14.6 million barrels per day industrial use really go? Can it be reduced?

Why CAN'T we drill our way out of the oil shortage?

The democrats and Obama keep saying it. "We can't drill our way out of it". Why not? Estimates of the size of oil reserves in US territory start around 20 billion barrels and go up to 83 billion. There is every reason to believe that more will be found as we drill. The country only uses 20 million barrels a day. That's enough oil to fill ALL our usage for 3 to 11 years, going from today's figures. When drilling finds more reserves, which it always does, then we get even more time.
Granted, 3 to 11 years isn't for ever, but it's a long time, long enough to do a lot of things.
Up here we can't run the furnace on alternative energy and we can't drive to work on it either.

The rebels had it right (on some things)

Been reading Shelby Foote's Civil War book[s]. Right after secession, the Confederate government wrote a Constitution for the Confederacy. As one might expect, it borrowed heavily from the US Constitution but there were some worthwhile improvements.
Each bill brought before the Confederate Congress must address only one subject, announced in the title of the bill. That should eliminate those scummy "riders" attached to important bills. And, the Confederate President had the line item veto, he could cross out porky items in appropriation bills without vetoing the entire thing.
Things never change much. These issues from 1860 still resonate in 2008.

Whither GM, and whose fault is it anyway?

Megan McArdle offers this gloomy forecast for GM's future. She thinks they will be bankrupt inside of ten years. She may well be right. Skimming thru the raft of comments, and finger pointing following her post, I find a couple a things missing.
Most important cause of GM's trouble is simple; lousy cars. They have small sedans, but who wants 'em?. Styling varies between drab and ugly. Gas mileage no better than my 99 Caddy DeVille. Mostly painted grey. Reputation for breaking down often, followed by GM's reputation for gouging on repair part prices. Same car sold under multiple names which dilutes the effectiveness of advertising and blurs the brand names together. Cars sold under new made up silly sounding names that nobody has ever heard of. Awful dealer service. Lousy resale value. Everyone would rather buy a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Accord than anything in GM's lineup.
This is management failure, the union doesn't control this. GM needs a real car guy like old Lee Iacocca. He is the guy that invented the Mustang, the K cars, and the minivan. Revolutionary cars, that no committee would ever have approved, but Iacocca pushed them thru and they all sold like gangbusters. The few car guys at GM are doing Corvettes and Camaro's, nice enough cars, but niche markets. There aren't enough guys with Corvette/Camaro money to keep a behemoth like GM running. So, number one GM problem, crummy cars. Fix that and a lot of things get better.
Number two problem is expensive labor. UAW workers get twice as much pay and fringe benefits and Toyota and Honda workers. That's Toyota and Honda workers in the US. This is a legacy of wimpy management in the past. Back then, GM management caved to the UAW by promising rich retirements, rather than a pay hike. The retirement benefits wouldn't come due on their watch, whereas a pay hike takes money now. Back then, gutsy management would have taken a strike to hold wages down, in fact, wimpy management kicked the can down the road. That's history now. We are down the road now, and that can is right there, big as ever. GM cannot pay the rich retirement and health care deals promised in the past, one way or another the company will welsh on it's commitments. Bankruptcy is one way to skip out on your debts.