My analysis was directed toward purely physical conditions, such as defective wiring, presence of lack of air spaces between metal flues and woodwork, etc., and the results were presented in these terms.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Only by observing this condition would the results of our work be regarded as fully conclusive and as having elucidated the normal course of the phenomena.
In a total work, the failures have their not unimportant place.
When reason and unreason come into contact, an electrical shock occurs. This is called polemics.
If you want to uncover problems you don't know about, take a few moments and look closely at the areas you haven't examined for a while. I guarantee you problems will be there.
As an engineer I'm constantly spotting problems and plotting how to solve them.
As a boy, I was deeply interested in scientific ideas, electrical and mechanical, and I read almost everything I could find on the subject. I was attracted more by the hardware and construction aspects than by the scientific issues.
If the experiments which I urge be defective, it cannot be difficult to show the defects; but if valid, then by proving the theory, they must render all objections invalid.
I think it's a combination of technical and social factors that leads to all the defects in deployed software.
Any problem can be solved using the materials in the room.
Conductors don't suffer, they are part of the performance.