| ??? 09/02/09 17:58 Read: times |
#168704 - It's a poor tradeoff, security against schedule Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
...
No, I don't think you should count Bismarck or Tirpitz as big and blunt monuments instead of very efficient war machines. It's not the effectiveness of the individual "war machines" but, rather, the environment within which they had to operate. With no air support and no destroyers that could keep up, however good they were, they were not suitable for the application. It's the same way with MCU's, BTW. You can have a really good MCU in the circuit, but, without careful attention to support logic and power supply conditions, it won't matter how good it is. Next thing is of course that both US and Russia got their hands on a lot of German scientists at the end of the war. Leaks or no leaks - I think Russia would have got their nuclear capabilities anyway. Maybe three to five years later, but that wouldn't have made too much of a difference. Especially since neither side had equipment to properly supervise the other side. It wasn't so easy to detect the explosion of a smaller nuclear device, when all you could detect and speculate about was weak shock waves that could just as well have been natural. What happened afterward is another story, of course. Nevertheless, Fermi and others were leaking information to the "other side" all along, for whatever their reasons were. The U.S. was probably short-sighted in their effort to get the project successfully completed ASAP, not realizing that once their bomb was deployed, others would have it because their security had been weak. U.S. software vendors have made the same mistake in the past, but nowadays, the trend is to compromise quality in favor of security. They spend ~10,000 man-hours on security and ~2000 on quality. The resulting evidence is everywhere! RE |
