43 NOVEMBER 2024 WorldWide Drilling Resource® 4 C J 44th Annual UGWA Conference & Expo January 8-10, 2025 Mesquite, NV Join us for an a amazing opportunity to network with the best in o our industry plus: (801) 541-7259 utahgroundwater.org Join us for an amazing opportunity to network with the best in our industry, plus: Golf Tournament Skeet Shoot Vendor Displays CEU Classes Banquet Scholarship Auction General Membership Meeting Board Elections Raffle Drawings New & Improved Isn’t Always by Britt Storkson Owner, P2FlowLLC Someone please tell me why one needs a computer “update” if everything is already working satisfactorily? See the article “CrowdStrike Gives Update After 'Largest IT Outage in History' Leads to Global Disruptions” at https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/07/19/cyber-outage-n2642191 Often we just assume “newer is better” - and sometimes it is - but it’s not always the case. Newer is different from the older, but it isn’t always better. In this case, as near as I can tell from this article, someone had the bright idea of creating another update. An update to fix what? We don’t really know. It sounds like they ignored the timetested wisdom of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That, combined with inadequate, incomplete, and/or incompetent testing, can create quite a disaster because what one system does, can alter other systems. It’s kind of like the domino effect. This is why modular testing is so important. One tests part of the system and, if that works, then one adds it to another part of the system and then tests that section. This process is repeated until the product is complete. Then the entire system is tested under varying conditions. When it passes all of the tests - then and only then - should the product be made available to the general public. Another dynamic we’re seeing now is companies develop updates that aren’t really needed - solely to create additional revenue. In this case, it appears to have backfired and instead of adding to their bottom line, it might end up trashing their bottom line. Remember, most of the technology we’re using today has been in common usage for almost 100 years. We use billions of electric motors - and basically, the electric motor hasn’t changed since the 1920s. Electric motor companies have automated the manufacturing process to make them faster and cheaper to build, but the technology they use is still the same. Most of us drive internal combustion engine cars and basically that technology hasn’t changed either. Sure, it’s been refined and perfected over the years to make it cheaper to build and more reliable, but the basic technology hasn’t changed in over 100 years of making automobiles. We have also had electric cars for nearly 100 years. They were tried and rejected 100 years ago for the same reasons most “green energy” products will ultimately be rejected. Why? Because unless we get a huge technological breakthrough sometime in the future (highly unlikely), conventional power generation (meaning coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) is by far cheaper and more reliable than anything the green energy folks have come up with so far. Right now green energy costs about ten times more than conventional energy sources and it isn’t even factoring in the government/taxpayer subsidies. What would you buy if you went car shopping and had two choices - a reasonably reliable conventional energy car selling for “X” dollars offering short-range operation, or a green energy automobile costing ten times more which requires hours to recharge (instead of taking minutes to refuel), is unreliable, and nearly useless in cold weather? Most people vote with their pocketbooks and would not vote for the money pit an electric car represents. They may be behind the times, but they aren’t behind with their car payments either. Britt Britt Storkson may be contacted via e-mail to michele@worldwidedrillingresource.com
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDk4Mzk=