I have received a couple of "complaints" about my "store-and-forward" service regarding people's comments on the HP3000, on HP management, on their worries, on their hopes, and so on. The complainers agree on one thing: What in hell am I doing as a "broker" or ideas? The individuals involved, themselves, should just post their thoughts (however "controversial") directly to the list. I fully agree. And I and wish such were the case. After all, I have a life OUTSIDE of HP3000-L (I have to write a lot of Adager code and I have to go skiing with the family, among many other things). Nevertheless, I keep thinking of the Korean Airlines airplane (or aeroplane, if you prefer) that was shot down by the Soviets a few years ago. There are many theories, but I remember one in particular. Having spent a fair amount of time sitting in the cramped quarters of a plane's cockpit, I can attest to the reasonableness of this theory. I know there are quite a few pilots out there on this list. So, please share your opinions regarding my interpretation of things. A plane's cockpit is designed with an "open" mentality in mind. By "open mentality" I mean the possibility (even the encouragement) of diversity of opinions. Anyone can question anyone else's interpretation of a given set of facts. HP3000-L is a prime example of such open mentality. To avoid total chaos, some moderation is necessary (even encouraged). In a plane's case, there is a hierarchy of command and the captain (theoretically) can override everything (unless the copilot kills the captain :-) Apparently, in the case of that fateful flight of the Korean Airlines plane, the captain made some errors while entering crucial navigational information into the plane's computer (here we go again with the theme of navigation... do you remember "Longitude"?) The second and third officers detected the error but did not dare tell the captain (the analysis that I studied, a long time ago, ventured to say that such an attitude is typical of the "closed" mentality that prevails in totalitarian and/or dictatorial societies). As a result, while the captain was sipping Perrier with some VIPs in First Class -- according to the plane's black-box recordings of cockpit conversations--, the Soviets shut down the plane because it was "in their territory". (I lost track of the "Korean Airlines catastrophe" thread, so don't flame me if you have a different interpretation; I'm just using this case as an example; even if it were fictitional, the whole unfortunate incident would still illustrate my point; so, please read on.) Bottom line: the three people in charge of that plane defeated the design purpose of the cockpit environment (based on an open mentality in mind, where anyone can question anyone else's interpretation of a given set of facts), with dire consequences for hundreds of passangers. If we add their relatives, we can, sadly, say "with dire consequences for THOUSANDS of people. The freightened subordinates in that plane died in the "package deal" together with the innocent victims, so no-one could flame them. The insolent "inferior" who dared keep independent navigational data for the English fleet (mentioned in the book "Longitude") was hung on the spot for mutiny and died, thus also avoiding being flamed (just a few hours before a couple of thousand sailors died in the resulting shipwreck). With these not-so-inviting precedents, I don't blame certain HP3000 users for not wanting to vent their frustrations publicly. There are two kinds of HP3000 users: 1) Those who either own their business or have the full support of their managers, even if such HP3000 users are temporarily off the wall; their managers know that they'll be willing to study all the facts and, eventually, reach a reasonable conclusion (i.e, people who operate in a truly open environment). These people are the ones who post feely to HP3000-L, both to express their opinions and to ASK questions whose answers till help them fine-tune their opinions (or even change them totally). 2) Those who work under managers that "want one of X" (whatever "X" may be) at ANY cost, because everyone else has "X" and they must also have "X" so they don't look foolish in the golf course. These people know darn well what will happen to them if they question their "superiors". These people are the ones who write to me so I can convey their side of the story. Their hope, as they have communicated to me time and again, is that by venting these issues in public, some fresh air will get into their institutions and the SECRET question that their "superiors" ask themselves at night ("by the way, what is 'X'?") will be exposed to open discussions. Until such ventilation of the issues takes place, I'm afraid I'll continue playing the role of idea broker. But, believe me, I would rather do something else with my time. Like writing more Adager code or skiing more with my family. Openly yours, +---------------+ | | | r | Alfredo [log in to unmask] | e | http://www.adager.com | g | F. Alfredo Rego Tel 208 726-9100 | a | Manager, Theoretical Group Fax 208 726-2822 | d | Adager Corporation | A | Sun Valley, Idaho 83353-3000 U.S.A. | | +---------------+