Petroski: Success Through Failure - Revision history

BNEditor at 01:02, 15 April 2009

BNEditor — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:02:37 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 15 April 2009
Line 12:		Line 12:

	[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: Top-Rated Books]]		[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: Top-Rated Books]]
		+	[[Category: JNS]]

BNEditor at 21:52, 22 January 2009

BNEditor — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:52:55 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 22 January 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{Notesby\|JNS}}		{{Notesby\|JNS}}

-	[[Category: Book Notes]]	+	[[Category: Book Notes]][[Category: Top-Rated Books]]

JNShaumeyer at 21:03, 8 August 2006

JNShaumeyer — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:03:41 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 8 August 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	As a sample of Petroski's style, here he is examining the ambiguity between success and failure in engineering, how failure is a complex concept and may be a matter of perception [pp. 103--104]:		As a sample of Petroski's style, here he is examining the ambiguity between success and failure in engineering, how failure is a complex concept and may be a matter of perception [pp. 103--104]:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
-	The telegraph had its limitations, among them being the failure of individuals not versed in Morse code to be able to communicate directly with each other. Alexander Graham Bell's invention answered that challenge by allowing uncoded voices to be carried over unlimited distances, as long as they were connected by telephone wires. But the telephone too had its failings, chief among them being the very limitation shared by the telegraph: the need for wires. The development of wireless communication thus became the next goal, and it was made practical around the turn of the [twentieth] century by, among others, Guglielmo Marconi. Since the "wireless," as the name suggests, was designed to replace the telegraph, it was perceived at first to be a failure in that it did not just carry signals point to point but broadcast them so that anyone with the proper receiving equipment could listen in on what were intended to be private communications. it took a while before this failing was seen as an advantage, but in a different context. Ships at sea could broadcast calls for help, as the ''Titanic'' tried to do. (Unfortunately, the nearest potential recipients of her distress calls had turned their wireless sets off for the night, not having yet come to recognize the full potential of the new technology.) It was not until after World War I that the advantage of broadcasting programs to what came to be called radios was fully realized and exploited.	+	The telegraph had its limitations, among them being the failure of individuals not versed in Morse code to be able to communicate directly with each other. Alexander Graham Bell's invention answered that challenge by allowing uncoded voices to be carried over unlimited distances, as long as they were connected by telephone wires. But the telephone too had its failings, chief among them being the very limitation shared by the telegraph: the need for wires. The development of wireless communication thus became the next goal, and it was made practical around the turn of the [twentieth] century by, among others, Guglielmo Marconi. Since the "wireless," as the name suggests, was designed to replace the telegraph, it was perceived at first to be a failure in that it did not just carry signals point to point but broadcast them so that anyone with the proper receiving equipment could listen in on what were intended to be private communications. It took a while before this failing was seen as an advantage, but in a different context. Ships at sea could broadcast calls for help, as the ''Titanic'' tried to do. (Unfortunately, the nearest potential recipients of her distress calls had turned their wireless sets off for the night, not having yet come to recognize the full potential of the new technology.) It was not until after World War I that the advantage of broadcasting programs to what came to be called radios was fully realized and exploited.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

JNShaumeyer at 18:13, 3 August 2006

JNShaumeyer — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:13:01 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 3 August 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The telegraph had its limitations, among them being the failure of individuals not versed in Morse code to be able to communicate directly with each other. Alexander Graham Bell's invention answered that challenge by allowing uncoded voices to be carried over unlimited distances, as long as they were connected by telephone wires. But the telephone too had its failings, chief among them being the very limitation shared by the telegraph: the need for wires. The development of wireless communication thus became the next goal, and it was made practical around the turn of the [twentieth] century by, among others, Guglielmo Marconi. Since the "wireless," as the name suggests, was designed to replace the telegraph, it was perceived at first to be a failure in that it did not just carry signals point to point but broadcast them so that anyone with the proper receiving equipment could listen in on what were intended to be private communications. it took a while before this failing was seen as an advantage, but in a different context. Ships at sea could broadcast calls for help, as the ''Titanic'' tried to do. (Unfortunately, the nearest potential recipients of her distress calls had turned their wireless sets off for the night, not having yet come to recognize the full potential of the new technology.) It was not until after World War I that the advantage of broadcasting programs to what came to be called radios was fully realized and exploited.		The telegraph had its limitations, among them being the failure of individuals not versed in Morse code to be able to communicate directly with each other. Alexander Graham Bell's invention answered that challenge by allowing uncoded voices to be carried over unlimited distances, as long as they were connected by telephone wires. But the telephone too had its failings, chief among them being the very limitation shared by the telegraph: the need for wires. The development of wireless communication thus became the next goal, and it was made practical around the turn of the [twentieth] century by, among others, Guglielmo Marconi. Since the "wireless," as the name suggests, was designed to replace the telegraph, it was perceived at first to be a failure in that it did not just carry signals point to point but broadcast them so that anyone with the proper receiving equipment could listen in on what were intended to be private communications. it took a while before this failing was seen as an advantage, but in a different context. Ships at sea could broadcast calls for help, as the ''Titanic'' tried to do. (Unfortunately, the nearest potential recipients of her distress calls had turned their wireless sets off for the night, not having yet come to recognize the full potential of the new technology.) It was not until after World War I that the advantage of broadcasting programs to what came to be called radios was fully realized and exploited.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
		+
		+	{{Notesby\|JNS}}

	[[Category: Book Notes]]		[[Category: Book Notes]]

JNShaumeyer at 04:11, 15 June 2006

JNShaumeyer — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:11:46 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:11, 15 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{Incomplete}}~~
	{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}		{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}
	Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.		Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.
Line 5:		Line 4:
	Henry Petroski has been ardent in promoting the idea that a healthy relationship with failure is vital to engineering success. He believes that hubris is the root cuase of engineering faliure. Consider his example concerning the US Space Shuttle, where he describes managers' response to a sequence of little failures as "confirming" success rather than as harbingers of castastrophe.		Henry Petroski has been ardent in promoting the idea that a healthy relationship with failure is vital to engineering success. He believes that hubris is the root cuase of engineering faliure. Consider his example concerning the US Space Shuttle, where he describes managers' response to a sequence of little failures as "confirming" success rather than as harbingers of castastrophe.

		+	As a sample of Petroski's style, here he is examining the ambiguity between success and failure in engineering, how failure is a complex concept and may be a matter of perception [pp. 103--104]:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	The telegraph had its limitations, among them being the failure of individuals not versed in Morse code to be able to communicate directly with each other. Alexander Graham Bell's invention answered that challenge by allowing uncoded voices to be carried over unlimited distances, as long as they were connected by telephone wires. But the telephone too had its failings, chief among them being the very limitation shared by the telegraph: the need for wires. The development of wireless communication thus became the next goal, and it was made practical around the turn of the [twentieth] century by, among others, Guglielmo Marconi. Since the "wireless," as the name suggests, was designed to replace the telegraph, it was perceived at first to be a failure in that it did not just carry signals point to point but broadcast them so that anyone with the proper receiving equipment could listen in on what were intended to be private communications. it took a while before this failing was seen as an advantage, but in a different context. Ships at sea could broadcast calls for help, as the ''Titanic'' tried to do. (Unfortunately, the nearest potential recipients of her distress calls had turned their wireless sets off for the night, not having yet come to recognize the full potential of the new technology.) It was not until after World War I that the advantage of broadcasting programs to what came to be called radios was fully realized and exploited.
		+	</blockquote>

	[[Category: Book Notes]]		[[Category: Book Notes]]

JNShaumeyer at 01:50, 9 June 2006

JNShaumeyer — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:50:57 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:50, 9 June 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}		{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}
	Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.		Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.
		+
		+	Henry Petroski has been ardent in promoting the idea that a healthy relationship with failure is vital to engineering success. He believes that hubris is the root cuase of engineering faliure. Consider his example concerning the US Space Shuttle, where he describes managers' response to a sequence of little failures as "confirming" success rather than as harbingers of castastrophe.
		+

	[[Category: Book Notes]]		[[Category: Book Notes]]

JNShaumeyer at 21:21, 8 June 2006

JNShaumeyer — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:21:50 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 8 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Incomplete}}
	{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}		{{BNR-table\|scienticity=4\|readability=4\|hermeneutics=5\|charisma=5\|recommendation=5}}
	Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.		Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.

	[[Category: Book Notes]]		[[Category: Book Notes]]

JNShaumeyer at 17:04, 8 June 2006

JNShaumeyer — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:04:48 GMT

New page

{{BNR-table|scienticity=4|readability=4|hermeneutics=5|charisma=5|recommendation=5}}
Henry Petroski. ''Success Through Failure : The Paradox of Design''. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2006. xii + 235 pages.

[[Category: Book Notes]]