Clearly in response to that terrible accident on the New Jersey Turnpike, where a semi rear ended a van and put Tracy Morgan in the hospital and killed a good friend of his. Diane did a whole hour this morning about safety of the big rigs.
In an hour, she never did explain what Federal regulations say about driving hours. Lotta talk about how the regulations should be changed, no explanation of what they are right now. The trucker involved in the accident admitted to driving for 24 hours straight, which is very dangerous by any standard. My personal standard would be never more than 12 hours behind the wheel, and eight hours of sleep before driving again. Somehow in an hour of talk Diane never did clear up what the Feds require right now, but she was sure the regulations needed to be tightened up.
Funny, except for that NJ Turnpike crash the other day, I always considered the big rig truckers to be safe and professional drivers, far better than the average driver of a passenger car.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Bering Land Bridge Unneccesary
The Bering Land Bridge comes up in archeological discussions of how the Indians came to America. Geological changes are thought to have raised the land of the Bering Straits above sea level allowing the ancestors of the Indians to walk across from Asia. The main geology evidence in favor is that the modern Bering Straits are fairly shallow. If there is any other evidence in favor of an ancient land bridge, I never heard it.
Actually, a land bridge is not needed for the Indians to cross the Bering Straits. Modern Alaska Eskimos cross the straits, in skin boats. Or at least they did up until the late 1940's when the Soviets made life difficult for any American Eskimos found on their side of the straits. Which generated a strong anti-communist spirit among the Eskimos that persists to this day.
The Eskimo's used skin boats, umiaks. While this sounds primitive, the skin was walrus hide, quarter of an inch thick and tough as fiberglass. They were built up to 30 feet long, and were strong enough to withstand the thrust of a 40 horsepower outboard motor. Evinrude was popular among the Eskimo, more so than Mercury or Johnson.
And, if you have ever traveled in the back country, you know that canoe is the way to go. Given a water way, two men and a canoe can carry a thousand pounds of cargo, and do it faster than walking pace. Whereas afoot the same two men can only backpack a hundred pounds of food and gear. The Indian canoe is so good a water craft that it is still in production today. Granted modern materials give a vaster stronger vessel, but birchbark is strong enough to make a useful canoe. The crew must take greater care in the rapids, touch a rock and you have a big leak, but it is perfectly do able.
So I have no trouble believing the Indians followed the coast line, and paddled across the open strait in good weather. The only timing issue I see is the state of the Ice Age. At the height of glaciation,10,000 years ago, North America must have been as bleak as the North Pole. But when the glaciers melt back, the grass comes up and game animals appear to eat the grass then enterprising bands of Indians or proto-Indians could have emigrated to the New World. Archeological finds in North America are mostly dated after the last Ice Age. There are a few sites claimed to be earlier, but not many, and the pre glacial sites are "controversial", i.e. the archeologists still argue about the dating.
Actually, a land bridge is not needed for the Indians to cross the Bering Straits. Modern Alaska Eskimos cross the straits, in skin boats. Or at least they did up until the late 1940's when the Soviets made life difficult for any American Eskimos found on their side of the straits. Which generated a strong anti-communist spirit among the Eskimos that persists to this day.
The Eskimo's used skin boats, umiaks. While this sounds primitive, the skin was walrus hide, quarter of an inch thick and tough as fiberglass. They were built up to 30 feet long, and were strong enough to withstand the thrust of a 40 horsepower outboard motor. Evinrude was popular among the Eskimo, more so than Mercury or Johnson.
And, if you have ever traveled in the back country, you know that canoe is the way to go. Given a water way, two men and a canoe can carry a thousand pounds of cargo, and do it faster than walking pace. Whereas afoot the same two men can only backpack a hundred pounds of food and gear. The Indian canoe is so good a water craft that it is still in production today. Granted modern materials give a vaster stronger vessel, but birchbark is strong enough to make a useful canoe. The crew must take greater care in the rapids, touch a rock and you have a big leak, but it is perfectly do able.
So I have no trouble believing the Indians followed the coast line, and paddled across the open strait in good weather. The only timing issue I see is the state of the Ice Age. At the height of glaciation,10,000 years ago, North America must have been as bleak as the North Pole. But when the glaciers melt back, the grass comes up and game animals appear to eat the grass then enterprising bands of Indians or proto-Indians could have emigrated to the New World. Archeological finds in North America are mostly dated after the last Ice Age. There are a few sites claimed to be earlier, but not many, and the pre glacial sites are "controversial", i.e. the archeologists still argue about the dating.
If not Hillary. who?
Hillary Clinton looks like a shoo in for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. She has name recognition, she doesn't have any competition.
On the other hand, she has baggage left over from the Clinton Administration. She didn't do much as Secretary of State, she is deeply involved in the Benghasi scandal, she is getting very old, she doesn't take enough care of her personal appearance, she shows up on TV looking totally disheveled.
But if they don't go with Hillary, who is left?
On the other hand, she has baggage left over from the Clinton Administration. She didn't do much as Secretary of State, she is deeply involved in the Benghasi scandal, she is getting very old, she doesn't take enough care of her personal appearance, she shows up on TV looking totally disheveled.
But if they don't go with Hillary, who is left?
Monday, June 9, 2014
Words of the Weasel Part 38
"Lacks tranparency."
"Lacks clarity."
Nice speak meaning "They are lying."
"Lacks clarity."
Nice speak meaning "They are lying."
Sunday, June 8, 2014
What's different between the VA and GM?
GM canned 15 people fort the ignition switch scandal. How many people has the VA canned?
Words of the Weasel, Part 37
"It's under investigation and I have to wait until the investigation is complete before I can comment."
"It's under litigation, so I cannot say any thing."
"It's in the hands of the prosecutors, so I cannot say anything about it".
"We need to wait for all the facts to come in before reaching a conclusion."
All fair sounding ways of saying "No comment."
"It's under litigation, so I cannot say any thing."
"It's in the hands of the prosecutors, so I cannot say anything about it".
"We need to wait for all the facts to come in before reaching a conclusion."
All fair sounding ways of saying "No comment."
Saturday, June 7, 2014
ISO 9000 and the future of GM
ISO 9000 is an international standard for manufacturing excellence. It's world wide. More and more customers are demanding their suppliers be certified as ISO 9000 compliant. Twice I was involved in pushing the company into compliance with ISO-9000. Quite a push, each time. It's gotten so widespread that I saw a lumber mill in far northern Ontario sporting an ISO 9000 banner on it's front lawn. At this point, if you are a manufacturer, and you want your customers the think you make good stuff, rather than junk, you get yourself ISO 9000 certified.
So what are we talking about here? At bottom it's pretty simple. There is only one way to make the product right. There are thousands of ways of making it wrong. Your production line workforce are willing, but they aren't experienced craftsmen or technicians, they don't understand the product very well. If you carefully explain to each line worker what he must do to make the product right, and give him written instructions, from which he must never deviate, then that line will turn out a consistent, probably a good, product. The foremen must know all the procedures, and make sure the line workers comply with them. When so-and-so doesn't show up for work, the foreman has to grab somebody else and get him doing so-and-so's job to keep production running. For this to work right, the written job instructions have to be readily available, and written in plain English, not techno-geek gibberish.
One of the important jobs is incoming inspection. At a minimum the inspector must verify that what was shipped is the same as what was billed for. No short weight, no wrong part number. In a lot of cases, the incoming parts are tested to make sure they work, meet spec, will fit. If incoming accepts something that isn't right, the production line will put that part into the product. Ignition switches for example.
To get certified, the company hires an agency, which sends an inspection team to walk their production line, see that the workers know what they are doing, that written instructions are readily available, and that the workers are following those instructions. They ask questions, like "What do you do if a part doesn't meet spec?" The correct answer, the answer that gets the company certified, is "We reject the shipment and send it back."
Now let's take a look at GM, old Government Motors. We have the new GM CEO, a thirty year veteran in the company engineering department. She says "Just because the part doesn't meet spec doesn't mean it isn't acceptable." In front of a Congressional committee no less. This is the CEO saying this. If the top person doesn't think compliance with written procedures is important, does anyone at GM do things by the book? What happens on GM production lines with that kind of corporate culture. Especially on graveyard shift? As I think about that one, buying a Ford begins to make a lot of sense to me.
GM may have canned 15 people over the ignition switch disaster, but does anyone think that is enough to get the word around?
So what are we talking about here? At bottom it's pretty simple. There is only one way to make the product right. There are thousands of ways of making it wrong. Your production line workforce are willing, but they aren't experienced craftsmen or technicians, they don't understand the product very well. If you carefully explain to each line worker what he must do to make the product right, and give him written instructions, from which he must never deviate, then that line will turn out a consistent, probably a good, product. The foremen must know all the procedures, and make sure the line workers comply with them. When so-and-so doesn't show up for work, the foreman has to grab somebody else and get him doing so-and-so's job to keep production running. For this to work right, the written job instructions have to be readily available, and written in plain English, not techno-geek gibberish.
One of the important jobs is incoming inspection. At a minimum the inspector must verify that what was shipped is the same as what was billed for. No short weight, no wrong part number. In a lot of cases, the incoming parts are tested to make sure they work, meet spec, will fit. If incoming accepts something that isn't right, the production line will put that part into the product. Ignition switches for example.
To get certified, the company hires an agency, which sends an inspection team to walk their production line, see that the workers know what they are doing, that written instructions are readily available, and that the workers are following those instructions. They ask questions, like "What do you do if a part doesn't meet spec?" The correct answer, the answer that gets the company certified, is "We reject the shipment and send it back."
Now let's take a look at GM, old Government Motors. We have the new GM CEO, a thirty year veteran in the company engineering department. She says "Just because the part doesn't meet spec doesn't mean it isn't acceptable." In front of a Congressional committee no less. This is the CEO saying this. If the top person doesn't think compliance with written procedures is important, does anyone at GM do things by the book? What happens on GM production lines with that kind of corporate culture. Especially on graveyard shift? As I think about that one, buying a Ford begins to make a lot of sense to me.
GM may have canned 15 people over the ignition switch disaster, but does anyone think that is enough to get the word around?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)